# Harassment At PaizoCon 2017



## Dannyalcatraz

Sounds like a good corporate public response.


----------



## Ell-Egypto

I hope there wasn't any conflation going on. A lot of people confuse opinions and actual harassment these days. Sometimes mere words get equated with physical assault.


----------



## S'mon

This Robert Brookes is certainly a busy little bee. That's two scalps in less than a week.

I expect Webb did make an off-colour remark. I'd be a lot more surprised if he really physically attacked a Paizo employee, so I wonder what was behind that allegation.


----------



## Fildrigar

Ell-Egypto said:


> I hope there wasn't any conflation going on. A lot of people confuse opinions and actual harassment these days. Sometimes mere words get equated with physical assault.




Oh, good gravy. Did you read the post at all? The harassment happened and was acknowledged.


----------



## kenmarable

S'mon said:


> This Robert Brookes is certainly a busy little bee. That's two scalps in less than a week.
> 
> I expect Webb did make an off-colour remark. I'd be a lot more surprised if he really physically attacked a Paizo employee, so I wonder what was behind that allegation.




Be surprised then. Robert says he was a direct witness in the PaizoCon incident (rather than a trusted confidant reporting what others have told him like with the PFS issue), because he was nearby and had to help physically stop Bill from stalking the victim through the hotel. Other witnesses and the victim herself have said the only reason the police weren't involved is that she didn't want Bill arrested in front of his kids, and would rather he had a chance to sober up and then leave. 

So it appears that the incident was really extremely serious and so very much further than "an off-colour remark."


----------



## billd91

And they have made a statement about the PFS NDA: Tonya Woldridge on the NDAs


----------



## Obryn

S'mon said:


> This Robert Brookes is certainly a busy little bee. That's two scalps in less than a week.
> 
> I expect Webb did make an off-colour remark. I'd be a lot more surprised if he really physically attacked a Paizo employee, so I wonder what was behind that allegation.



Evidently, what was behind that allegation is that it actually happened.

And yeah, with Weinstein in the news right now - and O'Reilly, Ailes, etc. not too long ago before him - the time is right to bring incidents of harassment and assault into the light.


----------



## Sunsword

The question I am wrestling with is that if BJ didn't want this be high profile and Paizo and FGG respected this and by her account handled the situation well, then why did Robert Brookes go against the target's wishes and make it a public spectacle? Is that truly helpful?


----------



## billd91

Helpful? Maybe? There are multiple ways of being helpful. You can help the victim which, in some circumstances, means keeping her out of the public eye or on a need to know basis. Or you could help the community by identifying the offenders and offenses, which means exposing them and keeping them under scrutiny. I'm not sure there's a set of entirely right or wrong approaches to these situations that determines an appropriate trade-off between the different ways of being helpful.

However, it is true that partial information leads to misundestanding, jumping to conclusions, and a whole host of other problems including misdirecting ire (sometimes at the victim, the messenger, the medium, the host, or anywhere but the offender) and sometimes that forces people to reveal more info than they really wanted to or forces the victim into the light when they'd really prefer to avoid it so that further injustices aren't done on their behalf.


----------



## James Gray1

Sunsword said:


> The question I am wrestling with is that if BJ didn't want this be high profile and Paizo and FGG respected this and by her account handled the situation well, then why did Robert Brookes go against the target's wishes and make it a public spectacle? Is that truly helpful?




Robert felt Bill Webb was a potential threat to women at future conventions and couldn't be sure what was being done on a convention level to mitigate the problem. He called Webb out, hoping to raise awareness so women could know avoid going through what he saw Ms. Hensley go through. Robert did so without naming Ms. Hensley and I believe he did so with the best of intentions, trying to walk the line between her wish to remain anonymous and the need to protect others.


----------



## Obryn

Sunsword said:


> The question I am wrestling with is that if BJ didn't want this be high profile and Paizo and FGG respected this and by her account handled the situation well, then why did Robert Brookes go against the target's wishes and make it a public spectacle? Is that truly helpful?



Well, it's helpful to consumers, con-goers, and convention organizers, at a minimum.

Robert didn't name any victims - I had no idea until she came forward. But it's a pretty serious incident, so yeah, I think on the balance it is something that needed to get out there. And I don't think we'd have seen today's and yesterday's public statements on the topic if it hadn't.

Sweeping incidents under the rug is how a hobby gets full to the brim of serial harassers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sweeping incidents under the rug is how a hobby (or society, institution, or any other group) gets full to the brim of serial harassers.


----------



## GMSkarka

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sweeping incidents under the rug is how a hobby (or society, institution, or any other group) gets full to the brim of serial harassers.




Keep in mind, for most of you, this is a hobby.   For some folks, however, this is talking about our work environment.  It is critically important that this information be out there for that reason.


----------



## S'mon

kenmarable said:


> So it appears that the incident was really extremely serious and so very much further than "an off-colour remark."




Yes, this drunkenly following her around the hotel thing sounds pretty bad.


----------



## Henry

"Bad" is not the word i'd use. What the bloody ...

To clarify, my comment isnt directed at S'mon, it's directed at the... insanity, for lack of a better word that's going on, and has been going on to a greater deal than I ever realized, apparently.


----------



## mach1.9pants

BJ Hensley post on Paizo, regarding the incident
"Paizo Con: The only thing I desire is peace and to be left alone to create.

As the victim in this particular situation, I have watched in public silence as the world dissected my story and speculated as to the intimate details. I looked on and relived these events as people believed, disbelieved, defended me passionately, and cast doubt on the situation. I received many wonderful messages from those who were there or heard what happened, expressions of anger on my behalf and an outpouring of love. And yet I am heartbroken by what I see, not due to the event itself but that these same individuals, who aided me when I was in need, are being verbally assaulted and accused of less than exemplary behavior. So, despite being told that I in no way needed to by countless individuals on all sides of the event, I’ve chosen to speak. I’ve selected Paizo as my medium to do so to ensure that everyone can see my words.

What happened at Paizo Con was not appropriate. The offensive behavior I dealt with from this person was very inappropriate, unwanted, and frankly a bit scary. However, Paizo’s staff did all they could to ensure I was safe, they made all the right offers to take care of the situation, and when I declined some of their suggestions they chose to protect me with their silence. Nearly every member of Paizo’s staff interacted with me in some way during these awful events. Many offered protection, others walked me to my room, spoke out on my behalf, held my hand while I was afraid, and even physically stepped in when the clearly inebriated individual in no way wanted to hear my “No thank you.”. In the end, Lisa Stevens herself shed tears alongside me as she heard my story. Her concern was genuine, her anger fierce, and at no point was there any disbelief. She passionately argued to be able to defend me and doesn’t deserve to be accused of doing anything less than her very best to protect me while I was in her “house”. Paizo made me feel welcome, believed in, and defended me in every way I would allow.

No one tried to silence me, I silenced them.

The individual who stalked me through the halls that day was far too drunk to drive, he had children staying at the convention, and I asked that he be allowed to leave when sober. I also requested the incident be kept as quiet as possible to protect his family. Additionally, several of my friends work at the very company this man represents, I didn’t want their professional lives impacted by a public scandal any more than I wanted anyone else’s to be. Members of Frog God Games checked in on me and handled their side of the mess as they saw fit. I protected others and I tried to protect myself. I’m a private person who’s survived far worse storms than what happened here and I simply wanted to resolve the issue for all involved and put it behind me before it resurfaced more traumatic events in my mind. We all have to choose what hills we die on. I didn't feel the need to make this one mine. I work here. This industry is my life, it’s where my friends are, it’s my creative outlet; the place where I bring to life all the crazy ideas parading through my mind, and all I want to do is take my imagination out for a stroll and create games we all enjoy.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all the people who cared enough to stand up for me, walk beside me, and protect me from the public. I personally consider this matter closed and would prefer everyone else do so as well for the sake of my own privacy and personal sanity. – BJ Hensley"

From here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uoph?Open-Letter-From-Paizo-CEO-Lisa-Stevens


----------



## DaveMage

If all the above is true (and it certainly seems that way), and since the identity of the harassed individual has been revealed, I hope Bill will speak publicly about it, and make it right.  

Even better, do the right thing corporately, such as donating some of the proceeds of a future product toward awareness (or similar).

Necromancer/Frog God Games has always done right by its customers so I would expect the same thing in this case.


----------



## trancejeremy

Sunsword said:


> The question I am wrestling with is that if BJ didn't want this be high profile and Paizo and FGG respected this and by her account handled the situation well, then why did Robert Brookes go against the target's wishes and make it a public spectacle? Is that truly helpful?




To be blunt, because people who knew but said nothing is how people like Weinstein, O'Reilly, Ailes, Cosby, that college coach, that children's guy at the BBC (Jimmy Saville?), and Roman Polanski got away with it for decades, victimizing more and more people.

The answer isn't to hush it up and hope it doesn't happen again. Because the people who do this once are more than likely to keep doing it until they are forced to stop.

Yes, it's awful that victims essentially end up being victimized again. But it's the only way to prevent future victims.

I have to say, I am disappointed at how Paizo has handled this, though not particularly surprised Frog God has shrugged it off.  "Lol, I was just drunk, it's okay to harass women and hurt people when you're drunk"


----------



## Paraxis

Guy gets drunk and acts stupid and people lose their minds, this happens all the time, it's happening right now, somewhere.

No one was physically hurt, no one was raped, the "victim" needs to develop a thicker skin and learn to forgive and forget this should never have been made an issue of. 


This new social justice politically correct atmosphere plaguing society is only going to get worse if we don't draw the line somewhere soon.  People shouldn't get persecuted on the internet, hounded on social media, and possibly lose employment over something like this. There is a good reason the cops were not called, it's because they wouldn't have done a damn thing besides talk to him for a bit and calm the situation down because nothing criminal happened.


[This post is entirely inappropriate, and completely out of line with the inclusiveness stance of this website. Putting "victims" in quote marks, and belittling the experience of somebody who experienced harassment, is not acceptable on this site. It's stuff like this which normalises harassment and cons and ensures that it will continue. Please do not post in this thread again. - Morrus]


----------



## kenmarable

Paraxis said:


> Guy gets drunk and acts stupid and people lose their minds, this happens all the time, it's happening right now, somewhere.
> 
> No one was physically hurt, no one was raped, the "victim" needs to develop a thicker skin and learn to forgive and forget this should never have been made an issue of.
> 
> 
> This new social justice politically correct atmosphere plaguing society is only going to get worse if we don't draw the line somewhere soon.  People shouldn't get persecuted on the internet, hounded on social media, and possibly lose employment over something like this. There is a good reason the cops were not called, it's because they wouldn't have done a damn thing besides talk to him for a bit and calm the situation down because nothing criminal happened.




Were you a witness to the incident? Do you have information that every other witness who has spoken up does not have? That would be good to know. Because all of the people *who were actually there* disagree with every single thing you claim here. 

Personally, I believe the people who were actually there over Random Internet Commenter.


----------



## Paraxis

kenmarable said:


> Were you a witness to the incident? Do you have information that every other witness who has spoken up does not have? That would be good to know. Because all of the people *who were actually there* disagree with every single thing you claim here.
> 
> Personally, I believe the people who were actually there over Random Internet Commenter.




So your saying someone was physically hurt or raped?


----------



## DM Howard

Paraxis said:


> Guy gets drunk and acts stupid and people lose their minds, this happens all the time, it's happening right now, somewhere.




So, because people get drunk and do stupid things all the time means that it's OK and everyone should get a pas because "I was drunk. *tee-hee*"?



Paraxis said:


> No one was physically hurt, no one was raped, the "victim" needs to develop a thicker skin and learn to forgive and forget this should never have been made an issue of.




You will actually find, if you care to read the Paizo thread linked up-thread, that the victim was not clamoring for attention and simply wanted to resolve the situation and move on.  This did not occur and steps had to be taken to ensure her safety.  The fact that you don't see her as a victim and how you choose to put that word in quotations is troubling at best.




Paraxis said:


> This new social justice politically correct atmosphere plaguing society is only going to get worse if we don't draw the line somewhere soon.  People shouldn't get persecuted on the internet, hounded on social media, and possibly lose employment over something like this. There is a good reason the cops were not called, it's because they wouldn't have done a damn thing besides talk to him for a bit and calm the situation down because nothing criminal happened.




This has absolutely nothing to do with social justice, I am far from a social justice warrior, but no one deserves to be harassed, stave off unwanted advances (verbal and physical), and be stalked through a hotel.  Honestly, if you ask me, Bill Webb should lose his position over this, then maybe people would take this stuff seriously and see it for the anti-social act that it is.  The police were not called per the the woman's request, as she did not want to harm Mr. Webb's family who was at the convention as well.  The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice considers sexual harrassment a punishable offense (thus criminal) under article 120 and that's good enough for me.


----------



## kenmarable

Paraxis said:


> So your saying someone was physically hurt or raped?




Yes.

Read the article above (or any of the witness accounts). One Paizo staffer was injured trying to stop Bill. 

So yes.


----------



## Paraxis

kenmarable said:


> Yes.
> 
> Read the article above (or any of the witness accounts). One Paizo staffer was injured trying to stop Bill.
> 
> So yes.




So some guy white knighted and probably got punched for his interference sounds like more stuff to be chalked up to a few to much to drink and something that happens all the time and isn't a big deal. 

The girl didn't get hurt, is my point, the people there should have handled it better.  It should have never been made into a thing and we should have never heard about it.


----------



## kenmarable

Paraxis said:


> So some guy white knighted and probably got punched for his interference sounds like more stuff to be chalked up to a few to much to drink and something that happens all the time and isn't a big deal.
> 
> The girl didn't get hurt, is my point, the people there should have handled it better.  It should have never been made into a thing and we should have never heard about it.




So some guy probably got in a knife fight with Bill and almost died but the [-]girl[/-] grown adult woman had to beat him unconscious with a fire extinguisher to barely escape with her life.

I mean, if we are going to just invent imaginary versions of the incident that conflict with actual reports, why don’t we at least make it interesting?


----------



## Sphynxian

Paraxis wasn't there, doesn't know now what he's talking about, and is just looking for lulz. You're more likely to convince the moon that it's a gigantic grape over a nice cup of tea than get him to stop self-owning. Your time is better spent elsewhere.


----------



## billd91

Paraxis said:


> So some guy white knighted and probably got punched for his interference sounds like more stuff to be chalked up to a few to much to drink and something that happens all the time and isn't a big deal.
> 
> The girl didn't get hurt, is my point, the people there should have handled it better.  It should have never been made into a thing and we should have never heard about it.




This was "a thing" because a drunk  made it a thing. And the idea that this happens all the time, while probably true, is a major aspect of the problem. My wife and daughter aren't as safe as I am in this world because of people like Bill Webb and people like you who normalize and excuse what he did.


----------



## Shasarak

kenmarable said:


> So some guy probably got in a knife fight with Bill and almost died but the [-]girl[/-] grown adult woman had to beat him unconscious with a fire extinguisher to barely escape with her life.




So that was why James Sutter had to quit and move to Canada because the fat cats at Paizo would not cover his medical bills!

That is ridiculous, just how many gold-plated hot tubs do they need?


----------



## Shasarak

billd91 said:


> This was "a thing" because a drunk  made it a thing. And the idea that this happens all the time, while probably true, is a major aspect of the problem. My wife and daughter aren't as safe as I am in this world because of people like Bill Webb and people like you who normalize and excuse what he did.




If it makes you feel any better your wife and daughter are safer now then they ever were at any other time in history.


----------



## Rygar

I visit ENWorld for RPG news and reviews, because ENWorld is advertised as an RPG new and review site.  This article is not RPG news or reviews.  Nor were a number of other articles this past year.  The articles were very clearly political articles.  If I wish to read political articles I will visit political websites.

I would like to take a moment to remind the owners and moderators that when your site is driven by political content you gain a reputation of being a political website and you will be treated as a political website by everyone from visitors to advertisers.  You can be sure that every company in the RPG industry, from WOTC to the small studios, are presently reading these articles that are being posted here and evaluating whether or not they want their products to be associated with the political content and commentary that results.

This is my final visit to ENWorld, it is clear that the political content is increasing in volume.  I expect I am not the first and will not be the last.


----------



## Dire Bare

Sphynxian said:


> Paraxis wasn't there, doesn't know now what he's talking about, and is just looking for lulz. You're more likely to convince the moon that it's a gigantic grape over a nice cup of tea than get him to stop self-owning. Your time is better spent elsewhere.




Hey, Paraxis did me a favor. He got me to realize I needed to add another horrible poster to my ignore list.

Dismissing acts of sexual harassment as no big deal and victim blaming, especially when all actually involved pretty much agree on every point and spelled things out pretty clearly . . . the acts of small-minded people with no empathy or compassion.


----------



## God

Bye Felicia.


----------



## Dire Bare

I'm sorry to hear about more sexual harrassment in our community, and my heart goes out to BJ and others who have dealt with this type of awful behavior. There is no excuse for what Webb did, none. I don't think the guy needs to lose his job or be crucified on the internet (unless he already has a history of this type of behavior), but now I'll be thinking thrice before purchasing anything with his name on it.

I think BJ, Robert, Paizo, and Frog God all handled this very well. BJ wanted the incident to be reported and dealt with, but had sympathy for Webb and his family. Robert wanted to make sure the incident was known and dealt with properly, to help stop this type of behavior in our community and society. Paizo was on top of it and reacted very well, Frog God also seems to be taking this seriously and appropriately.

I do think it would be wise if Webb did make a public apology, but if it seems even an iota insincere, he'll remain on my "no-buy" list. Being drunk is no excuse for behaving so heinously, and it's not like Webb could be excused as ignorant of the impact his action could have.


----------



## Obryn

Rygar said:


> I visit ENWorld for RPG news and reviews, because ENWorld is advertised as an RPG new and review site.  This article is not RPG news or reviews.  Nor were a number of other articles this past year.  The articles were very clearly political articles.  If I wish to read political articles I will visit political websites.
> 
> I would like to take a moment to remind the owners and moderators that when your site is driven by political content you gain a reputation of being a political website and you will be treated as a political website by everyone from visitors to advertisers.  You can be sure that every company in the RPG industry, from WOTC to the small studios, are presently reading these articles that are being posted here and evaluating whether or not they want their products to be associated with the political content and commentary that results.
> 
> This is my final visit to ENWorld, it is clear that the political content is increasing in volume.  I expect I am not the first and will not be the last.



Holy crap, dude. "Don't harass women. Harassment is a serious issue, and here are some examples where people in the industry did it" is not political content. That's absurd.

Unless demeaning women is key to your political ideology? I can't imagine that's the case - it's not a core tenet of any reasonable political ideology I'm aware of. But then again, you calling it political implies that it is, maybe?


----------



## Kelewandar

Rygar said:


> I visit ENWorld for RPG news and reviews, because ENWorld is advertised as an RPG new and review site.  This article is not RPG news or reviews.  Nor were a number of other articles this past year.  The articles were very clearly political articles.  If I wish to read political articles I will visit political websites.
> 
> I would like to take a moment to remind the owners and moderators that when your site is driven by political content you gain a reputation of being a political website and you will be treated as a political website by everyone from visitors to advertisers.  You can be sure that every company in the RPG industry, from WOTC to the small studios, are presently reading these articles that are being posted here and evaluating whether or not they want their products to be associated with the political content and commentary that results.
> 
> This is my final visit to ENWorld, it is clear that the political content is increasing in volume.  I expect I am not the first and will not be the last.




I for myself will keep coming to this web site. And yes, 99% of the time for RPG news. But you know what, I am happy that they take upon themselves of reporting such events when they happen in the community. These stories need to be told for things to change.  I’m pretty sure I am not the only one that think so and I’m definitely not the last to express myself on that topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rygar said:


> I visit ENWorld for RPG news and reviews, because ENWorld is advertised as an RPG new and review site.  This article is not RPG news or reviews.  Nor were a number of other articles this past year.  The articles were very clearly political articles.  If I wish to read political articles I will visit political websites.
> 
> I would like to take a moment to remind the owners and moderators that when your site is driven by political content you gain a reputation of being a political website and you will be treated as a political website by everyone from visitors to advertisers.  You can be sure that every company in the RPG industry, from WOTC to the small studios, are presently reading these articles that are being posted here and evaluating whether or not they want their products to be associated with the political content and commentary that results.
> 
> This is my final visit to ENWorld, it is clear that the political content is increasing in volume.  I expect I am not the first and will not be the last.




I'm sorry this is where you choose to make your final stand.

But this _IS _gaming news: Paizo, Frog God Games.  Ring bells?  These are gaming companies, run by people who are part of our community.

Oh yeah...and they're human beings.


----------



## jgbrowning

~ substituted a "Grandma Friendly" acronym.  You're welcome.

Thanks!


----------



## Guang

kenmarable said:


> Were you a witness to the incident? Do you have information that every other witness who has spoken up does not have? That would be good to know. Because all of the people *who were actually there* disagree with every single thing you claim here.
> 
> Personally, I believe the people who were actually there over Random Internet Commenter.




I think this brings up a good point that no one has mentioned yet.
It makes a huge difference if he was following her around for half a minute or half an hour. 
It makes a huge difference if he was sort of following her when he saw her at a distance, or following directly behind her.
It makes a huge difference whether or not he kept his hands to himself.
It makes a huge difference if the injury mentioned was a scrape from keeping from being restrained, or if he broke somebody's arm.

I've seen many people comment on boycotting the company or worse. I have no problem with destroying a rapist's livelihood. I do have a problem with destroying someone's livelihood because he was rude and uncouth. The trouble for me with this whole discussion is *I have no idea which one this is*. There is a huge range of things that could have happened, and it my mind, it *does make a difference* what specifically happened before life-changing consequences are imposed.


----------



## S'mon

billd91 said:


> My wife and daughter aren't as safe as I am in this world




That's not true and you'd be unwise to believe it; men are a lot more likely to be physically attacked than women.


----------



## Morrus

Rygar said:


> You can be sure that every company in the RPG industry, from WOTC to the small studios, are presently reading these articles that are being posted here and evaluating whether or not they want their products to be associated with the political content and commentary that results.




I fervently hope so.


----------



## Morrus

Paraxis said:


> Guy gets drunk and acts stupid and people lose their minds, this happens all the time, it's happening right now, somewhere.
> 
> No one was physically hurt, no one was raped, the "victim" needs to develop a thicker skin and learn to forgive and forget this should never have been made an issue of.
> 
> 
> This new social justice politically correct atmosphere plaguing society is only going to get worse if we don't draw the line somewhere soon.  People shouldn't get persecuted on the internet, hounded on social media, and possibly lose employment over something like this. There is a good reason the cops were not called, it's because they wouldn't have done a damn thing besides talk to him for a bit and calm the situation down because nothing criminal happened.




This post is entirely inappropriate, and completely out of line with the inclusiveness stance of this website. Putting "victims" in quote marks, and belittling the experience of somebody who experienced harassment, is not acceptable on this site. Please do not post in this thread again.


----------



## TheSwartz

I wish I could get harassed.


----------



## Venley

This is definitely news and I am glad both that this site has brought it to the attention of readers here (albeit 4 days after reports elsewhere that I have been reading) and that there is a decent attempt at inclusiveness by Morrus. Would that extended to other readers and owners/moderators of other sites.


----------



## kenmarable

Shasarak said:


> If it makes you feel any better your wife and daughter are safer now then they ever were at any other time in history.




No, it doesn’t make many of us feel any better. Sure, they aren’t going to get burned at the stake, but most people aren’t satisfied with a bar set that low. “Better than history” is not the best we can do.



S'mon said:


> That's not true and you'd be unwise to believe it; men are a lot more likely to be physically attacked than women.




I’m thinking you have some apples and oranges in that pie. But even if it is true, so what? It’s not a contest. If someone wants to have better locks on their house or a security system, distracting with talk about airbags because they are more likely to be in a car crash than to have their house robbed is not helpful.


1. There exists a problem in our community.
2. The problem is experienced frequently enough that it has driven talented professionals and fans out of the community.
3. There are ways people have been successful in reducing this problem.
4. Talented professionals and fans should be able to enjoy our community without the threat of that problem.
Conclusion. Let’s reduce this problem, alrighty?

Where’s the controversy? It doesn’t matter whether it is better than history or how it compares to other problems. There is a problem and there are ways to reduce that problem.

If physical attacks against men are a problem at our conventions, then let’s address it also. If there are other problems, then let’s address them also. However, that has zero relevance to addressing *this* problem that clearly exists and is harming our community.


----------



## Reynard

I am sorely disappointed in much of hat we are seeing here in the comments. The tendency to say "Hey, wait a minute, let's give the harasser the benefit of the doubt, and maybe we should take a closer look at the so-called victim. What was she wearing?" is disturbing and infuriating. If your initial reaction was to side against the victim, you really need to re-examine your attitudes. Men make up the majority of this hobby and industry and it is up to us to ensure the problematic minority does not tarnish the whole community.

I really want to thank Morrus for bringing this to the fore. It is important.


----------



## LadyKali

Thank you for moderating Morrus.


----------



## ddaley

Surprised to see no mention of this:
https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/920489843821486080
http://tedfauster.com/2017/10/18/fallen-hero-the-end-of-my-business-relationship-with-frank-mentzer/

Which is probably related to his kickstarter for Empyrea being cancelled.


----------



## billd91

ddaley said:


> Surprised to see no mention of this:
> https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/920489843821486080
> http://tedfauster.com/2017/10/18/fallen-hero-the-end-of-my-business-relationship-with-frank-mentzer/
> 
> Which is probably related to his kickstarter for Empyrea being cancelled.




Hard to say, really. It didn’t look like his Kickstarter was going to fund before those went up anyway - too high a goal and probably too much hubris involved for an industry veteran whose influence is already waning.


----------



## Obryn

ddaley said:


> Surprised to see no mention of this:
> https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/920489843821486080
> http://tedfauster.com/2017/10/18/fallen-hero-the-end-of-my-business-relationship-with-frank-mentzer/
> 
> Which is probably related to his kickstarter for Empyrea being cancelled.



There's another thread for it, from a few days ago.

And the Empyrea kickstarter was already crashing and burning. You could see it on Day 1 if you know kickstarters. It had an _extremely _ambiguous pitch beyond "look at these names of people I know," an unrealistic goal (250k for a generic fantasy setting?), expensive pledge tiers (like $50 for the pdfs), and many of what experienced backers consider warning signs (no draft, nothing written at all in fact, no idea on content, overly ambitious multi-system support, unrealistic release goals, no direct creator interaction, obvious unfamiliarity with kickstarter 'best practices,' and a recent reputation for volatility, like going off on critics).


----------



## ddaley

Obryn said:


> There's another thread for it, from a few days ago.
> 
> And the Empyrea kickstarter was already crashing and burning. You could see it on Day 1 if you know kickstarters. It had an _extremely _ambiguous pitch beyond "look at these names of people I know," an unrealistic goal (250k for a generic fantasy setting?), expensive pledge tiers (like $50 for the pdfs), and many of what experienced backers consider warning signs (no draft, nothing written at all in fact, no idea on content, overly ambitious multi-system support, unrealistic release goals, no direct creator interaction, obvious unfamiliarity with kickstarter 'best practices,' and a recent reputation for volatility, like going off on critics).




Yeah, I avoided that kickstarter for a few of those reasons.  However, his behavior definitely didn't win him any fans.  And, people began posting about it in the comments of the kickstarter.


----------



## bruce_lombardo

kenmarable said:


> Yes.
> 
> Read the article above (or any of the witness accounts). One Paizo staffer was injured trying to stop Bill.
> 
> So yes.




Sad to see this happened.  On the issue of one staffer being injured, there are a lot of people that I'm positive would love to take a drunken swing at me.  As a man, I'm up for that.  And I'm sure that punching someone felt pretty good.


----------



## ehren37

trancejeremy said:


> I have to say, I am disappointed at how Paizo has handled this, though not particularly surprised Frog God has shrugged it off.  "Lol, I was just drunk, it's okay to harass women and hurt people when you're drunk"





Not sure what Paizo did wrong here. Seemed they offered immediate condemnation for the perpetrator and support for the victim. Did you read BJ Hensley's response? Can you elaborate where you thought they failed?

Frog God's also seemed a bit better than "lol drunk men, amirite?". I understand the caution regarding identifying the victim name because our hobby has quite a number of gross MRA/Gamergate/Red Pill types, a few of whom have already reared their ugly heads in this very thread! They admitted it happened, and it sounds like their investigation and decisions on what to do are forthcoming. Not amazing, but honestly better than I expected from our hobby, given it's history as a (straight, white) boy's club.

Sometimes progress is measured in small steps. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.


----------



## Eltab

I am pleased that people present at the incident took the incident seriously.

I believe, however, that it will take more Official Reporting of such incidents - to build a verifiable trail and establish a pattern of behavior - in order to identify and punish the perpetrators.  When very public offenders (Weinstein, Pres. Clinton) are punished for their acts, other guys who have too much testosterone (and alcohol?) in their system, will have more powerful reasons to resist their chemical-fueled urges.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

ddaley said:


> Surprised to see no mention of this:
> https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/920489843821486080
> http://tedfauster.com/2017/10/18/fallen-hero-the-end-of-my-business-relationship-with-frank-mentzer/
> 
> Which is probably related to his kickstarter for Empyrea being cancelled.




Whole lotta "Ewwwww!"


----------



## Obryn

ehren37 said:


> Not sure what Paizo did wrong here. Seemed they offered immediate condemnation for the perpetrator and support for the victim. Did you read BJ Hensley's response? Can you elaborate where you thought they failed?



It's a few things - the tardiness of any official response, and a lack of any announced action for future conventions.

Probably in a vacuum, this would suffice. But there's the other NDA allegation, Price's allegation that she was asked to keep quiet on harassment while employed there, plus the child abuse demon who gives his followers magic child abuse powers that mirror how real-world abusers operate.



> Frog God's also seemed a bit better than "lol drunk men, amirite?". I understand the caution regarding identifying the victim name because our hobby has quite a number of gross MRA/Gamergate/Red Pill types, a few of whom have already reared their ugly heads in this very thread! They admitted it happened, and it sounds like their investigation and decisions on what to do are forthcoming. Not amazing, but honestly better than I expected from our hobby, given it's history as a (straight, white) boy's club.



Having one partner investigate another partner is a really weird dynamic. The issue here is that there's no sign there was any kind of corrective action taken (even as small as "Webb will not go to conventions for a while"), given that Webb's reputation for being really bad when drunk was apparently well-known even before this point.

I agree we can't make perfect the enemy of the good, but that's the criticism as I understand it.


----------



## Gradine

If anyone reading anyone is reading these stories and getting angry and wondering what the hell they can possibly do about it? Here's a pretty good resource: Bystander Intervention Resources

The responsibility for harassment at our cons, at our events, in our stores... goes far beyond the perpetrator and the response of the "proper authorities". It is everyone's responsibility. If you witness harassment, intervene. The link above provides multiple strategies for doing so, many of which don't involve getting in the perpetrator's face but still provide support.


----------



## bruce_lombardo

*Clarification...*

Identity politics will not help you in the long run.

...I understand the caution regarding identifying the victim name because  our hobby has quite a number of gross MRA/Gamergate/Red Pill types, a  few of whom have already reared their ugly heads in this very thread!  They admitted it happened, and it sounds like their investigation and  decisions on what to do are forthcoming. Not amazing, but honestly  better than I expected from our hobby, given it's history as a  (straight, white) boy's club...

First off, I come from a small town in central (rural) Illinois.  When I discovered this hobby, the first place I went to was in a poorer section of Decatur.  Because of it's location, it wasn't some straight white club hobby shop.  Secondly, the last town I moved to in Illinois before I self-exiled to Texas, was Peoria.  It had a few places around town, and the local TT gamer community was pretty well diversified (1987 vs. 2007).

Seeing the 'word' cis in front of anything, or reading 'redpill', or even the word Trump makes me quite dismissive of anything by said poster.  My politics are easy to find, but in my hobby, I look at people and want the felony for responding with violence to their idiocy.

Putting politics in games, hurts it.  You want to make your game elitist, fine.  Put in politics, make your stance known, and throw buzzwords like diversity around, flash your Starbucks cup, too.

Our hobby is known as an escapist one for a reason.  It should be the one place, where people can come together after they set aside differences--those belong at the coat check.  I think most people leave the scene because of responsibilities like family, or job.  But a quick second is, they don't feel welcome.

While the behavior at the convention might not be acceptable, the behavior from the majority of sober folks (I'm not sober as I'm typing this, some of you might not be, either) is disgusting.  I don't need everyone to think like me, and clean their guns as they are a proud three-percenter.  I'm also not really wanting everyone in the world to be a massive Scrubs fan or a fanatic of Zardoz...but this hobby is pretty damn huge.  It will have parts of it spill into other parts of our lives, I'm certain of this.

But trying to make it exclusive for the sake of diversity is not what the spirit was when the founders were making this game in Lake Geneva and at Dave's table in Minnesota.  We should not applaud the actions made poorly, but this hobby and it's people should be of the forgiving sort.  Unless you are the type that can't forgive, that would rather not forgive.  And I can't see anyone who has polyhedral die being that type.

My focus on this post was to be condescending of those who want to use "cis," and "straight white male" like it's terrible to be of that stripe or not.  We're gamers.  Condone the harmful action, love the person who committed it, and allow for forgiveness.


----------



## ehren37

Obryn said:


> It's a few things - the tardiness of any official response, and a lack of any announced action for future conventions.
> 
> Probably in a vacuum, this would suffice. But there's the other NDA allegation, Price's allegation that she was asked to keep quiet on harassment while employed there, plus the child abuse demon who gives his followers magic child abuse powers that mirror how real-world abusers operate.
> 
> 
> Having one partner investigate another partner is a really weird dynamic. The issue here is that there's no sign there was any kind of corrective action taken (even as small as "Webb will not go to conventions for a while"), given that Webb's reputation for being really bad when drunk was apparently well-known even before this point.
> 
> I agree we can't make perfect the enemy of the good, but that's the criticism as I understand it.




Ahh, for some reason I thought Paizocon just happened, didnt realize it was back in May. Agreed, earlier would have been sooner. Same with Frog God. 

The NDA thng I can believe as just some middle management staffer not knowing what a NDA really entails. And... umm... I guess I should be glad I don't know about the child abuse demon thing. A phrase which I did not think I'd be typing today.


----------



## jimmifett

So whats the real story here? All I see is
* Guy gets drunk.
* Guy hits on woman verbally. No physical touching?
* Woman rejects advances.
* Possible rude names used by Guy?
* Woman leaves area.
* Guy follows woman from unspecified distance.
* Guy2 gets in between and get in fight with Guy
* Someone possibly hits another person with fire extinguisher?
* No cops called, Everyone goes separate ways.
* Demonization of and calls for Guy to lose his job over unspecified "harassment" that no one wants to clearly lay out.

Do I have all the facts correct?

Harassment is in quotes, since no one will clarify what exactly was said or done, and the definition of harassment has skewed wildly since the Clarence Thomas hearings, I have no way to gauge whether or not real harassment occurred.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Wow. Threads like this a constant reminder that while there are good, even-handed people who see that decent treatment of another human being is a low bar that should be easily hurdled and not a "political issue". It also shows that there are a fair amount of people in the hobby who are pretty selfish and vile sociopaths as well. 

Glad that there seems to be more of the first group here and fewer of the latter.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Reynard said:


> If your initial reaction was to side against the victim, you really need to re-examine your attitudes.




If that's their initial reaction then there's no amount of re-examination of attitudes that are going to change them and suddenly make them empathic human beings . Make note of who they are , minimize your dealings with them and move on.


----------



## Obryn

jimmifett said:


> Do I have all the facts correct?.



No. 


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Morrus

ddaley said:


> Surprised to see no mention of this:
> https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/920489843821486080
> http://tedfauster.com/2017/10/18/fallen-hero-the-end-of-my-business-relationship-with-frank-mentzer/




Surprised you didn't see that Darryl covered it in an article here a few days ago.


----------



## Morrus

bruce_lombardo said:


> Identity politics will not help you in the long run.
> 
> ...I understand the caution regarding identifying the victim name because  our hobby has quite a number of gross MRA/Gamergate/Red Pill types, a  few of whom have already reared their ugly heads in this very thread!  They admitted it happened, and it sounds like their investigation and  decisions on what to do are forthcoming. Not amazing, but honestly  better than I expected from our hobby, given it's history as a  (straight, white) boy's club...
> 
> First off, I come from a small town in central (rural) Illinois.  When I discovered this hobby, the first place I went to was in a poorer section of Decatur.  Because of it's location, it wasn't some straight white club hobby shop.  Secondly, the last town I moved to in Illinois before I self-exiled to Texas, was Peoria.  It had a few places around town, and the local TT gamer community was pretty well diversified (1987 vs. 2007).
> 
> Seeing the 'word' cis in front of anything, or reading 'redpill', or even the word Trump makes me quite dismissive of anything by said poster.  My politics are easy to find, but in my hobby, I look at people and want the felony for responding with violence to their idiocy.
> 
> Putting politics in games, hurts it.  You want to make your game elitist, fine.  Put in politics, make your stance known, and throw buzzwords like diversity around, flash your Starbucks cup, too.
> 
> Our hobby is known as an escapist one for a reason.  It should be the one place, where people can come together after they set aside differences--those belong at the coat check.  I think most people leave the scene because of responsibilities like family, or job.  But a quick second is, they don't feel welcome.
> 
> While the behavior at the convention might not be acceptable, the behavior from the majority of sober folks (I'm not sober as I'm typing this, some of you might not be, either) is disgusting.  I don't need everyone to think like me, and clean their guns as they are a proud three-percenter.  I'm also not really wanting everyone in the world to be a massive Scrubs fan or a fanatic of Zardoz...but this hobby is pretty damn huge.  It will have parts of it spill into other parts of our lives, I'm certain of this.
> 
> But trying to make it exclusive for the sake of diversity is not what the spirit was when the founders were making this game in Lake Geneva and at Dave's table in Minnesota.  We should not applaud the actions made poorly, but this hobby and it's people should be of the forgiving sort.  Unless you are the type that can't forgive, that would rather not forgive.  And I can't see anyone who has polyhedral die being that type.
> 
> My focus on this post was to be condescending of those who want to use "cis," and "straight white male" like it's terrible to be of that stripe or not.  We're gamers.  Condone the harmful action, love the person who committed it, and allow for forgiveness.





Please review the rules:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/misc.php?do=showrules

Just so you know why, specifically, you are being asked to leave the thread.


----------



## DaveMage

Obryn said:


> The issue here is that there's no sign there was any kind of corrective action taken (even as small as "Webb will not go to conventions for a while"), given that Webb's reputation for being really bad when drunk was apparently well-known even before this point.




This is what I'm waiting to see.  I've loved Necromancer's/Frog God's products, but how they respond to this will determine if I'm going to continue to support them or not.  We all make mistakes, but how you respond when you injure another party is key (at least, for me).


----------



## Morrus

jimmifett said:


> So whats the real story here? All I see is
> * Guy gets drunk.
> * Guy hits on woman verbally. No physical touching?
> * Woman rejects advances.
> * Possible rude names used by Guy?
> * Woman leaves area.
> * Guy follows woman from unspecified distance.
> * Guy2 gets in between and get in fight with Guy
> * Someone possibly hits another person with fire extinguisher?
> * No cops called, Everyone goes separate ways.
> * Demonization of and calls for Guy to lose his job over unspecified "harassment" that no one wants to clearly lay out.
> 
> Do I have all the facts correct?




No; that scenario appears to be one you just made up.


----------



## Obryn

ShinHakkaider said:


> If that's their initial reaction then there's no amount of re-examination of attitudes that are going to change them and suddenly make them empathic human beings . Make note of who they are , minimize your dealings with them and move on.



Remember, a lot of these folks are sticking with unrealistic legalistic standards that simply don't apply in actual human day to day life.

And only applying them on one side, too. It's cool, you see, to believe the harasser should be considered innocent of harassment until the accuser reaches an unspecified, unrealistic, and ever-increasing burden of proof that will never be quite enough (even, just a few posts ago, a victim statement and the companies' own responses to the incidents.) 

But heaven forfend we give the accuser the same benefit of the doubt when they're accused of maliciously lying to ruin some guy's reputation. Because it's okay in their minds to treat them as a liar unless proven otherwise, you see.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## kenmarable

Obryn said:


> Remember, a lot of these folks are sticking with unrealistic legalistic standards that simply don't apply in actual human day to day life.
> 
> And only applying them on one side, too. It's cool, you see, to believe the harasser should be considered innocent of harassment until the accuser reaches an unspecified, unrealistic, and ever-increasing burden of proof that will never be quite enough (even, just a few posts ago, a victim statement and the companies' own responses to the incidents.)
> 
> But heaven forfend we give the accuser the same benefit of the doubt when they're accused of maliciously lying to ruin some guy's reputation. Because it's okay in their minds to treat them as a liar unless proven otherwise, you see.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk




Agree entirely. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence in *criminal trials* (and if it went to criminal trial, I would wholeheartedly support that). Even civil trials don't even meet that standard and instead rely on "preponderance of evidence." But this isn't even an example of that. This is a question of safety at a privately run convention as well as individual consumer buying decisions.

Of course, we have multiple witnesses all in agreement about what happened, and even Bill Webb via Frog God Games admitting it happened - and yet people still wave the "innocent until proven guilty" flag around. Makes you kinda wonder what would ever actually prove someone guilty of sexual harassment in the eyes of some people?

All too often there is the unspoken standard of *"liar until proven true"* but for some reason pretty much only in cases of women accusing men of sexual harassment and assault. Funny that.


----------



## kenmarable

ehren37 said:


> Not sure what Paizo did wrong here. Seemed they offered immediate condemnation for the perpetrator and support for the victim. Did you read BJ Hensley's response? Can you elaborate where you thought they failed?




This is a very difficult but important question that gets missed in this. On the one hand, you have respecting what the victim requested being very important. (And given my personality, if I was that person, I might have very well made the same decision.)

However, there is the issue of safety at future conventions. In many other fan conventions (especially beyond RPG community), this would be an uncontroversial, easy decision, perma-ban from all future conventions. 

However2, that conflicted with how the victim wanted it resolved. So going against the wishes of the one who is harmed can have a very definite impact on reports and lead to less people reporting. (Although, in this case, it sounds like it was public enough that relying on a report wasn't necessary.) But that is a definite concern since cases are underreported anyway.

However3, one of the reasons the victim gave for not wanting Bill banned longer is that it could negatively impact Frog God Games (given their close reliance on Pathfinder), and she has friends who work for them that could be harmed by that. The problem there is that this directly leads to the more influential someone is then the more they can get away with because more people rely on them for work. Which, I would hope, is not something we want to indirectly cause. (But see note above about how I'd likely decide the same thing in that situation, and absolutely 1000% do not fault the victim for wanting that.)

Add in the common human instinct (especially when business is involved) for Paizo to settle the situation quietly but attendees for safety reasons often wanting to hear about these very clearly. Plus Paizo's responsibility to the victim, responsibility to other attendees, responsibility to their own employees (safety and livelihood) and on and on. 

It's extremely complicated. Even as someone who taught and studied business ethics, I certainly don't have an answer for this one. It's likely to be a situational answer relying on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket answer. Unfortunately, the more situational an answer is, the easier it is to go very wrong.


----------



## jimmifett

Morrus said:


> No; that scenario appears to be one you just made up.




Not at all.

This is based on attempting to piece together all the vagueries in this thread and no one wanting to state what really happened.

I prefer knowing what really happened before calling for someone's job. It's a big difference between a drunken jerk making naughty remarks versus physical groping. I'm seeing alleged physical assault by several ppl. Nothing is clear, no one wants to make it clear, and a lot of ppl are wanting to terminate a career over hearsay.


----------



## unknowable

kenmarable said:


> Agree entirely. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence in *criminal trials* (and if it went to criminal trial, I would wholeheartedly support that). Even civil trials don't even meet that standard and instead rely on "preponderance of evidence." But this isn't even an example of that. This is a question of safety at a privately run convention as well as individual consumer buying decisions.
> 
> Of course, we have multiple witnesses all in agreement about what happened, and even Bill Webb via Frog God Games admitting it happened - and yet people still wave the "innocent until proven guilty" flag around. Makes you kinda wonder what would ever actually prove someone guilty of sexual harassment in the eyes of some people?
> 
> All too often there is the unspoken standard of *"liar until proven true"* but for some reason pretty much only in cases of women accusing men of sexual harassment and assault. Funny that.




Yup, i wouldn't  limitit it to men assaulting or harrassing women though. It is a fairly common human trait sadly.

I am glad this prick is getting notoriety,  i know for sure i won't ever buy anything with his name or company attatched to it.


----------



## billd91

kenmarable said:


> It's extremely complicated. Even as someone who taught and studied business ethics, I certainly don't have an answer for this one. It's likely to be a situational answer relying on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket answer. Unfortunately, the more situational an answer is, the easier it is to go very wrong.




Yeah, it's because of factors like the ones you enumerate, plus additional concerns about legal issues that private citizens can generally ignore, that I'm inclined to cut Paizo some slack on publicizing the issue and working quietly to bolster their con security guidelines and policies. Webb put them in a position that nobody wants to be in - vulnerable to trouble for doing too little and for doing too much all at the same time.


----------



## ddaley

Morrus said:


> Surprised you didn't see that Darryl covered it in an article here a few days ago.




I missed that somehow!  Sad that he would conduct himself in such a manner


----------



## Morrus

jimmifett said:


> Not at all.
> 
> This is based on attempting to piece together all the vagueries in this thread and no one wanting to state what really happened.
> 
> I prefer knowing what really happened before calling for someone's job. It's a big difference between a drunken jerk making naughty remarks versus physical groping. I'm seeing alleged physical assault by several ppl. Nothing is clear, no one wants to make it clear, and a lot of ppl are wanting to terminate a career over hearsay.




It’s not your place to make that decision. The companies involved will “call for somebody’s job” or not according to the facts at their disposal and their own policies. You and I get to hear some parts of it via the company statements made above, which Chris as duly reported. 

Other than that, we all just express our opinions. It’s a conversation, not a court. Nobody in this thread gets to decide what happens.


----------



## Justin Buell1

jimmifett said:


> It's a big difference between a drunken jerk making naughty remarks versus physical groping.




Not Really harassment is harassment.


----------



## billd91

Justin Buell1 said:


> Not Really harassment is harassment.




You know, I'm going to go with them being pretty different. One's harassment, the other's sexual assault. I'd even say there's a substantial difference between gradations of sexual harassment from rude to threatening. And in this case, Paizo was ready to call the cops, so I don't think we're simply looking at an off-color remark by a drunk but substantially threatening behavior.


----------



## Justin Buell1

billd91 said:


> You know, I'm going to go with them being pretty different. One's harassment, the other's sexual assault. I'd even say there's a substantial difference between gradations of sexual harassment from rude to threatening. And in this case, Paizo was ready to call the cops, so I don't think we're simply looking at an off-color remark by a drunk but substantially threatening behavior.




True, but dude is trying to just brush it off as "just some drunk dude making inappropriate comments"


----------



## Caliburn101

Don't forget that last bit!!!!!

An NDA is a legally binding CONTRACTUAL arrangement which CANNOT obviate anyone's right's to disclose CRIMINAL ACTS.

The fact any personnel acting on Paizo's behalf acted like it was shows dangerous ignorance, gross negligence and a disgusting attitude to the target of the harassment.


----------



## jimmifett

billd91 said:


> You know, I'm going to go with them being pretty different. One's harassment, the other's sexual assault. I'd even say there's a substantial difference between gradations of sexual harassment from rude to threatening. And in this case, Paizo was ready to call the cops, so I don't think we're simply looking at an off-color remark by a drunk but substantially threatening behavior.




This, exactly. I'm not going to carry torches and pitchforks after someone for being a jerk, or even a foul mouthed jerk. In my book, physical actions carry more weight than words.


----------



## billd91

Justin Buell1 said:


> True, but dude is trying to just brush it off as "just some drunk dude making inappropriate comments"




Yup, that's why I made sure to point out Paizo was ready to call the cops. Even with variations in severity, Paizo being willing to call the cops tells us that the people on the ground thought the situation considerably more severe than a drunk making inappropriate comments. And that's worth a lot more than some commenting yahoo on the internet.


----------



## Justin Buell1

jimmifett said:


> This, exactly. I'm not going to carry torches and pitchforks after someone for being a jerk, or even a foul mouthed jerk. In my book, physical actions carry more weight than words.




So you would have no problem with a Gay man drunkly following you around, telling you what a stud you are and making other sexual inappropriate comments?


----------



## jimmifett

Justin Buell1 said:


> So you would have no problem with a Gay man drunkly following you around, telling you what a stud you are and making other sexual inappropriate comments?




What does gay have to do with anything? If i'm being followed by anyone I don't want to be followed by, I do what any intelligent human being does, I move towards security. If i'm not being physically threatened by a weapon or or appearance of imminent physical attack, it's just a cat calling creep following me, which security will deal with.

Of course, i'm sure now i'll be told I have male privilege blah blah. Anyone can walk away and move towards security. Anyone can scream for attention if grabbed or attacked. Once you get to security, they can escort anyone where they feel they need to go and deal with the follower.


----------



## Lylandra

Justin Buell1 said:


> True, but dude is trying to just brush it off as "just some drunk dude making inappropriate comments"




And without wanting to rant: Why does someone who knows that he can get unruly while drunk drink alcohol at a public event? Especially when his family is around... being drunk is no excuse at all for any kind of inappropriate behavior (at least in my opinion). No one forces you to drink anyway.


----------



## Morrus

jimmifett said:


> What does gay have to do with anything? If i'm being followed by anyone I don't want to be followed by, I do what any intelligent human being does, I move towards security. If i'm not being physically threatened by a weapon or or appearance of imminent physical attack, it's just a cat calling creep following me, which security will deal with.
> 
> Of course, i'm sure now i'll be told I have male privilege blah blah. Anyone can walk away and move towards security. Anyone can scream for attention if grabbed or attacked. Once you get to security, they can escort anyone where they feel they need to go and deal with the follower.




You’ve now resorted to victim blaming. Leave the thread, please.


----------



## Obryn

billd91 said:


> Yup, that's why I made sure to point out Paizo was ready to call the cops. Even with variations in severity, Paizo being willing to call the cops tells us that the people on the ground thought the situation considerably more severe than a drunk making inappropriate comments. And that's worth a lot more than some commenting yahoo on the internet.



Yeah. It can both be true that...
(1) Assault and harassment are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such, and
(2) Both assault and harassment are serious issues that convention staff must take seriously.

There's this weird thing going on in this thread and the one about Mentzer where some folks are coming in and minimizing the importance of harassment because it's not the same thing as assault. This is obviously a really dumb take.

But yeah, I agree - there's also harassment and _harassment_ and this sure seems to be the italicized variation.


----------



## billd91

Lylandra said:


> And without wanting to rant: Why does someone who knows that he can get unruly while drunk drink alcohol at a public event? Especially when his family is around... being drunk is no excuse at all for any kind of inappropriate behavior (at least in my opinion). No one forces you to drink anyway.




Alcoholism? Stress? Because being a little drunk feels pretty good? Nobody knows but Bill Webb. As someone who has also gotten drunk at conventions, I'm not going to throw stones, particularly since all I've heard about Webb's history of drinking is second hand (and tales grow taller on down the line). But if he has a history of really losing control with other people (as opposed to just being a bit of a slob), then he should really seek to deal with that.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I'm a longtime fan of Necromancer Games and Frog God, and this shames me. It's now two black eyes to the industry involving OSR figures (not that OSR or new school matters here). Doubly so for the defenses of indefensible behavior as a result. 

The OSR should be about taking inspiration from the classic gaming era, not the recidivist attitudes of the time.


----------



## Shasarak

kenmarable said:


> No, it doesn’t make many of us feel any better. Sure, they aren’t going to get burned at the stake, but most people aren’t satisfied with a bar set that low. “Better than history” is not the best we can do.




That is a fantastic glass half full way to look at the best we have ever done!  I guess there is always the possibility of having everyone sitting around singing Kumbaya together.


----------



## Sunseeker

Shasarak said:


> That is a fantastic glass half full way to look at the best we have ever done!  I guess there is always the possibility of having everyone sitting around singing Kumbaya together.




I'm not entirely sure if this statement is sarcastic, but I want to bounce something off it either way.

Where I work, I have to call people all day long.  Sometimes at work.  Sometimes at home.  Sometimes at their grandmas house.  A lot of times, I'm just calling a number that _may_ be the person I'm trying to reach.

But here's the thing: if I don't _try_ the number, I'll never know.  I'll never know if they work at Joe's Diner.  I'll never know if they're at grandmas or if grandma will tell me how to reach them.  I'll just _never know_ until I try.

The same is true here.  If we don't shoot for the moon, I can guarantee you we'll never reach it.

Much like the sentiment in the article about D&D and black culture.  Trying is good.  It never hurts to try and it shows you _did_ make an effort.  But often, that effort is still not good enough, and we have to continue to _try harder_.  Settling for "we've improved, isn't that good enough?" isn't acceptable.


----------



## Anthro78

I love threads like this, because it allows me to add names to a list I keep of people whose opinions I can safely classify as worthy of no consideration at all.

If we don't talk about the stupid, terrible things that people do and why they're unacceptable, then we strengthen those who act like churlish numbwits and demean those who were actually harmed by the behavior.  Paizo's response troubles me, mainly because it makes me question whether this behavior is the sort of thing I want to support with my hard-earned money.  I really expected better of them and hope they are sincere in taking steps to be better.  If they're not, then I'm afraid they're going to lose my business.


----------



## Shasarak

shidaku said:


> The same is true here.  If we don't shoot for the moon, I can guarantee you we'll never reach it.




Yes and on the other hand we have already got to the moon.  Now it is just quibbling about the number of people that get there.


----------



## mudbunny

Shasarak said:


> Yes and on the other hand we have already got to the moon.  Now it is just quibbling about the number of people that get there.





Just to torture the analogy further, when you get to the moon, you don't stop. You try to make it easier, and you learn about the moon.


----------



## Morrus

I didn’t really follow all the strange analogies. Is somebody suggesting we’ve “reached the moon” in terms of dealing with harassment in our community? We haven’t. We’re not even the Wright Brothers yet. We’re still shooting for the moon.


----------



## Nikchick

I have been weighing my response to this comment section since yesterday because first, I was really angry at some of the horrible replies a few people felt were appropriate...but Morrus moderates this stuff well and doesn't need me coming in and mixing it up. And several people have responded with much more clarity, compassion, and common sense, which makes me wonder if my reply is needed.

After stewing on it a bit, I think I still have a few moments of perspective that could be useful, so here goes.

I am a woman in the game business so these issues are more than a matter of individual bad-actors being gross in my hobby. This is my livelihood. This is my workplace environment, for me personally and for those who do work for the company I co-own. I have been in this business for 28 years now and one of the benefits of my longevity is that I know a lot of other game pros. I have relationships with these people going back decades at this point. I am also in a position of power that comes from that perseverence and the status of the company I have been managing for the last 17 years. In short, schmucks and creepers don't try that behavior with me or, generally, even in my vicinity because I have more power than they do and they rightly anticipate that I am not someone they can bully, belittle, or harass and come out unscathed.

Over the course of my career in games, I have been active in our professional organizations (such as they are). I served on the board of the Game Manufacturers Association, whose two most consistent and influentual benefits were (and continue to be) putting on the GAMA Trade Show (focused on business to business communications between industry professionals) and the Origins Game Expo (consumer-facing, tabletop gaming convention with a significant attendance of professionals as well as fans, players, and hobbyists). For the last several years I have also been a volunteer on the advisory committee for one of the significant programming tracks at GenCon where professionals and experts in the various categories of tabletop gaming and adjacent interests (such as podcasting, hosting smaller regional conventions and games days, working with crossover media material and more) are invited to participate as Featured Presenters on a curated track of programming (think Ted Talks for Gamers). My years of involvement with organizations specifically concerned with conventions and convention programming, I think I have a somewhat more informed understanding about issues such as attendee safety, volunteer agreements, and liability (both in the legal sense and in the social responsibility sense, which have different standards).

In discussing Bill Webb's behavior in this thread I have seen a few people willing to offer him the "but he was drunk and people do  sometimes when they're drunk..." excuse. This excuse doesn't fly for reasons others have already elaborated upon but I will tell you SPECIFICALLY why it cannot be used to soften the criticism against Bill in particular. Bill is not an occasional drunk. He is a routine, PROUD heavy-drinker. Inviting him, oo in the case of PaizoCon merely allowing him, to participate in your convention means not that he "might" be drunk but that he WILL be drunk and he's already shown that he cannot be trusted to behave according to expected standards when drunk. 

This is not even remotely "insider information". Take a look at this screenshot of what appeared on the Frog God Games social media page recently, which was posted after the subject of Bill's behavior at PaizoCon crossed into being talked about openly instead of being debated behind the scenes: 

View attachment 90225

The timing of that post? Not a coincidence, folks. The "mightiest king of the cons" is proud of his drinking prowess and he's going to bring it, literally, to "any convention".

That is far more than enough to make responsible convention organizers take note and weigh the potential liabilites of allowing this person to participate. It's *plenty* for other professionals to decide that "he's always been nice to me" doesn't jusitfy giving this person cover for his behavior out in the world.  Folks less inclined than BJ Hensley to try to make peace and be "fair" to other parties might look at the timing and content of that posting and come to the conclusion that the "mightiest king of the cons" was, in fact, doubling down on his behavior and all but daring people to challenge him. I'm NEVER going to dictate to BJ what she should or should not do in response to her own experience but any self-righteous keyboard warrior who wants to engage in baseless speculation from the safety of their distant basement about what a victim of someone else's inappropriate behavior "SHOULD" do?  You don't get a say. Sorry, I know that's a blow to your ego, especially when you're convinced you're being so rational and "fair" in your assessment but that little scenario is all in your head and this IS NOT ABOUT YOU, CHUM. And if you want to fight about it you can fight me and leave BJ out of it. I am placing myself in the path of every cretin who thinks they're entitled to take shots at the *victims* of harassment, or to declare what's "enough" harm. You will go through me and those like me before we give space to people who cannot be trusted to behave like civilized adults and the supporters who prioritize bad actors above the people they hurt.

Nicole Lindroos


----------



## redrick

I own a number of Frog God products, and have particularly enjoyed playing and reading Matt Finch's adventures, but I won't be buying from them anymore.

Glad to see stories like this covered here. The headline was very kind to Mr. Webb. "Harassment at PaizoCon 2017" could easily have read "Bill Webb, CEO of Frog God Games, Accused of Sexual Harassment".


----------



## ShinHakkaider

redrick said:


> I own a number of Frog God products, and have particularly enjoyed playing and reading Matt Finch's adventures, but I won't be buying from them anymore.
> 
> Glad to see stories like this covered here. The headline was very kind to Mr. Webb. "Harassment at PaizoCon 2017" could easily have read "Bill Webb, CEO of Frog God Games, Accused of Sexual Harassment".




Yeah me too. I have a bunch of Frog God Games content including 3 of thier huge Hardcover books. I wont be buying anything from them any more. The only power a consumer has is to vote with thier dollars and I'm voting with mine. And if anyone asks me I'll be sure to tell them why.


----------



## Shasarak

Obryn said:


> Probably in a vacuum, this would suffice. But there's the other NDA allegation, Price's allegation that she was asked to keep quiet on harassment while employed there, plus the child abuse demon who gives his followers magic child abuse powers that mirror how real-world abusers operate.




Do you want to change the Book of the Damned to the Book of the Naughty?  In a game designed around killing things for their stuff?


----------



## Sunseeker

Shasarak said:


> Yes and on the other hand we have already got to the moon.  Now it is just quibbling about the number of people that get there.




To continue to torture my own analogy: and then we stopped.  We set up our flag and called it a day.  THAT is what is unacceptable.  We haven't _continuted_ to shoot for the moon.  We got there, walked around once, put up our flag and called it good enough.  That's _not_ good enough.

So to bring this back to human race relations?  We're not even close.  Worse than that, a lot of people have _stopped_ trying and that's the problem.  D&D is trying, even if it's two steps forward, one step back every time they do, it's still _trying_ to be better.

The idea that everything is hunky-dory is so incredibly privileged, white and male-centric that you made me put all those words in a post just to say it.


----------



## evilref

Shasarak said:


> Do you want to change the Book of the Damned to the Book of the Naughty?  In a game designed around killing things for their stuff?




I wasn't going to post here, because i've not been around enworld for years, but this is patently, utterly ludicrous.

I can only assume you've not read it, or you want to make some sort of 'har har, edgy' argument.

The text and specifically the rules are mechanically incentivised child abuse. You become better at child abuse the more of it you do. And more charismatic, because of course you do.

This wasn't something they had to do, no one forced them into writing this, no one forced them into publishing it, no one forced them to give:

Unnatural Lust: Force the victim to initiate - they started it, they wanted it
Mind Wipe: Wipe their memory of the event
Veil: Make them look like your perfect victim.

These are powers deliberately chosen (and what the heck was Unnatural Lust doing in the game in the first place) to directly, magically mimic what real child abusers do. I know, personally.

Furthermore, none of us have been killed by orcs, but people in our communities have been abused. Trivialising it as you do is insulting and utterly crass. And I get that you don't care, because you just want to be dismissive and cool, but there are people who have quite genuinely experienced upset and reminder of what happend to them because of how Paizo did it.

And Paizo's CCO, Erik Mona, has admitted it was a mistake, an error in judgement. Which is great, and a step, but a long way to go.


But you know, keep trivialising child abuse, because who cares, right?


----------



## mudbunny

Morrus said:


> I didn’t really follow all the strange analogies. Is somebody suggesting we’ve “reached the moon” in terms of dealing with harassment in our community? We haven’t. We’re not even the Wright Brothers yet. We’re still shooting for the moon.





For me, "reaching the moon" was exposing people for their harassment. And if I gave the impression that we have done that, so we can stop exposing people, I apologize for my words, I never, ever meant to indicate so. Rather, we need to continue doing so, and making it such that people realize that the actions of the "old boys club" that may have been considered acceptable back in the day are not f****** acceptable now, and that should you do it, the rest of the community and industry will come down on you like a ton of bricks and your chance of getting invited to future industry events is as likely as FATAL being nominated for best RPG of all time.

Again, if I gave the impression that we have done as much as we need to, I apologize.


----------



## Shasarak

evilref said:


> But you know, keep trivialising child abuse, because who cares, right?




Look if you want to abuse children in DnD there are already 101 ways.  How can you look at all the horrible awful things that Demons can do and then isolate one example while ignoring all the other evil twisted things that are in there?  These are supposed to be the guys you fight.


----------



## mudbunny

It's the difference between providing someone with a fully stocked chemistry lab, and letting them decide what they want to do with it, knowing they could do something bad, and providing someone with a series of one-button synthetic procedures to make date rape drugs.


----------



## unknowable

jimmifett said:


> What does gay have to do with anything? If i'm being followed by anyone I don't want to be followed by, I do what any intelligent human being does, I move towards security. If i'm not being physically threatened by a weapon or or appearance of imminent physical attack, it's just a cat calling creep following me, which security will deal with.
> 
> Of course, i'm sure now i'll be told I have male privilege blah blah. Anyone can walk away and move towards security. Anyone can scream for attention if grabbed or attacked. Once you get to security, they can escort anyone where they feel they need to go and deal with the follower.



Well given their response to the matter I am going to say it isn't much of a stretch to assume that the victim doesn't enjoy confrontations and as they said "didn’t want to make a scene when his family was there"

Not THAT confusing matey.

As for yelling for security, depeding on where it is someone can feel worried or concerned that it might escalate before they arrive, that they won't arrive or that if they do arrive that the victim won't be supported effectively.
Who knows, maybe she had been drinking and because of emotions / anxiety regarding the matter she wasn't in an objective space. She might be reliving PTSD events from her past and suffering from a heightened form of anxiety.

Now i am male, but I also spent a bit over two years of my childhood dealing with sexual abuse and rape, from two separate individuals. Then after growing up a bit more at age 15 and at my mother's friend's new years party a drunken guest forced herself on me when i went to the toilet.
It is all well to assume that i "could" have fought back or cried out but my experiences in life had inpacted how i responded the situation.

It isn't just because of fear or age either, heck I have a scar on my palm because i misjudged the knife of a person who tried to mug me.  Different events inform different expectations.

Were there things the victim could have done, probably, but that has nothing to do with how  judgements of the perpetrator should be handled.


----------



## evilref

Shasarak said:


> Look if you want to abuse children in DnD there are already 101 ways.  How can you look at all the horrible awful things that Demons can do and then isolate one example while ignoring all the other evil twisted things that are in there?  These are supposed to be the guys you fight.




Except that wasn't the rules that were presented, and I note that you ignored all the substansive points.

Mechanically incentivised child abuse.

You abuse kids, you get better at abusing kids, in exactly the same way that RL abusers do it.

They could have just described a cult in broad terms and left it up to individual DMs, instead they went all in and said that abusing kids makes you more charismatic and gives you spells that makes you better at abusing children.

The only reason to have mechanics is with the expectation or understanding that they see play at tables.

So are you going to be rolling saving throws for the children to see if they succumb to unnatural lust?

Are you going to be casting it on players attacking that cultist, so you can magically abuse their characters?

There were dozens of ways to present this (and let's remember that no one made them write this, it was a deliberate development and editorial decision to have this in the game, it wasn't needed, there was no gaping hole of not enough things to fight that this needed to fill, someone wanted to include this, and someone chose to make it directly, exactly recreate RL abuse).

And yes, as you said, there are 101 ways already, so why include mechanically incentivised child abuse if any DM could already do it?

And, again, ignoring the substansive points, because they're hard to argue against, aren't they?


----------



## mudbunny

To me, this statblock comes across as trying to be "LOOK AT HOW MATURE THIS BOOK IS!! SO INCREDIBLY MATURE!! SEE!! PURE MATURITY! LOOK!! ADULT TOPICS!!"


----------



## Shemeska

As the author of the material in question let me just state that while I did not create Folca originally (I don't know who on staff created them to add to the appendix in the back of BotD 3 which I wrote the entirety of) I was contracted the write the flavor text for all of the daemonic harbingers. Given the original plausible subtext for Folca it was not the most pleasant thing to write, but I didn't have the option to just not write something on my outline so I tried to present something that was hideous and evil. I would not personally use Folca or their followers directly in a game, outside of them existing like a boogieman to drive home the absolute horror of Abaddon as a plane. I would never explicitly describe anything by Folca in a game, rather just let that particular monster stay in the dark and let the players' brains fill in the hideous specifics.

I can't comment on the mechanical aspects of the entry for Folca as the content changed during development and out of professional tact I'm not comfortable getting into a discussion about specific developer changes versus turnover. I apologize for any offense at the material. Please don't insinuate damaging and ludicrous things about anyone that wrote or developed the material.


----------



## James Jacobs

As the developer of the Book of the Damned, I can indeed confirm Folca was an error of judgement.

If I had a time machine I'd go back and just cut Folca from the book entirely, since the inclusion of an entity that mirorred something like Pennywise from "It" obviously missed the mark HARD. (I wasn't involved in the initial creation of Folca back in the softcover Book of the Damned 3, but that's irrelevant to the fact that he's in the hardcover version. That inclusion, an error, is on me.)

It's something I would do differently now. Book of the Damned is indeed intended to be about evil, but that doesn't mean having ALL evils represented in it is a good thing. There's a lot of content that I took specific steps to deliberately NOT include in the book, and in hindsight this one should have been left on the cutting room floor as well.

I apologize for it, for what's that worth, and am grateful for the fact that I've been given this chance to learn from the mistake going forward in my role as Pathfinder's Creative Director.


----------



## Shasarak

evilref said:


> And, again, ignoring the substansive points, because they're hard to argue against, aren't they?




Look if a Player wants their PC to abuse children then what the heck is going to stop them?  Yeah thats right, the DM.

Because I am sorry but if your character is able to put the smack down on Giants and Dragons then what mechanics do you need to abuse a level 0 child?  And if you think you do need mechanics then Charm Person starts from level 1 and you dont even need Demons to get it.


----------



## Elf_flambe

Nikchick said:


> I have been weighing my response to this comment section since yesterday because first, I was really angry at some of the horrible replies a few people felt were appropriate...but Morrus moderates this stuff well and doesn't need me coming in and mixing it up. And several people have responded with much more clarity, compassion, and common sense, which makes me wonder if my reply is needed.
> 
> After stewing on it a bit, I think I still have a few moments of perspective that could be useful, so here goes.
> 
> I am a woman in the game business so these issues are more than a matter of individual bad-actors being gross in my hobby. This is my livelihood. This is my workplace environment, for me personally and for those who do work for the company I co-own. I have been in this business for 28 years now and one of the benefits of my longevity is that I know a lot of other game pros. I have relationships with these people going back decades at this point. I am also in a position of power that comes from that perseverence and the status of the company I have been managing for the last 17 years. In short, schmucks and creepers don't try that behavior with me or, generally, even in my vicinity because I have more power than they do and they rightly anticipate that I am not someone they can bully, belittle, or harass and come out unscathed.
> 
> Over the course of my career in games, I have been active in our professional organizations (such as they are). I served on the board of the Game Manufacturers Association, whose two most consistent and influentual benefits were (and continue to be) putting on the GAMA Trade Show (focused on business to business communications between industry professionals) and the Origins Game Expo (consumer-facing, tabletop gaming convention with a significant attendance of professionals as well as fans, players, and hobbyists). For the last several years I have also been a volunteer on the advisory committee for one of the significant programming tracks at GenCon where professionals and experts in the various categories of tabletop gaming and adjacent interests (such as podcasting, hosting smaller regional conventions and games days, working with crossover media material and more) are invited to participate as Featured Presenters on a curated track of programming (think Ted Talks for Gamers). My years of involvement with organizations specifically concerned with conventions and convention programming, I think I have a somewhat more informed understanding about issues such as attendee safety, volunteer agreements, and liability (both in the legal sense and in the social responsibility sense, which have different standards).
> 
> In discussing Bill Webb's behavior in this thread I have seen a few people willing to offer him the "but he was drunk and people do  sometimes when they're drunk..." excuse. This excuse doesn't fly for reasons others have already elaborated upon but I will tell you SPECIFICALLY why it cannot be used to soften the criticism against Bill in particular. Bill is not an occasional drunk. He is a routine, PROUD heavy-drinker. Inviting him, oo in the case of PaizoCon merely allowing him, to participate in your convention means not that he "might" be drunk but that he WILL be drunk and he's already shown that he cannot be trusted to behave according to expected standards when drunk.
> 
> This is not even remotely "insider information". Take a look at this screenshot of what appeared on the Frog God Games social media page recently, which was posted after the subject of Bill's behavior at PaizoCon crossed into being talked about openly instead of being debated behind the scenes:
> 
> View attachment 90225
> 
> The timing of that post? Not a coincidence, folks. The "mightiest king of the cons" is proud of his drinking prowess and he's going to bring it, literally, to "any convention".
> 
> That is far more than enough to make responsible convention organizers take note and weigh the potential liabilites of allowing this person to participate. It's *plenty* for other professionals to decide that "he's always been nice to me" doesn't jusitfy giving this person cover for his behavior out in the world.  Folks less inclined than BJ Hensley to try to make peace and be "fair" to other parties might look at the timing and content of that posting and come to the conclusion that the "mightiest king of the cons" was, in fact, doubling down on his behavior and all but daring people to challenge him. I'm NEVER going to dictate to BJ what she should or should not do in response to her own experience but any self-righteous keyboard warrior who wants to engage in baseless speculation from the safety of their distant basement about what a victim of someone else's inappropriate behavior "SHOULD" do?  You don't get a say. Sorry, I know that's a blow to your ego, especially when you're convinced you're being so rational and "fair" in your assessment but that little scenario is all in your head and this IS NOT ABOUT YOU, CHUM. And if you want to fight about it you can fight me and leave BJ out of it. I am placing myself in the path of every cretin who thinks they're entitled to take shots at the *victims* of harassment, or to declare what's "enough" harm. You will go through me and those like me before we give space to people who cannot be trusted to behave like civilized adults and the supporters who prioritize bad actors above the people they hurt.
> 
> Nicole Lindroos




Thank you very much for sharing your perspective and experience. Well said, and I applaud you. I'd heard about the Frog God ad, but hadn't seen it. Thank you for sharing it. Seeing what a company actually does says a lot more about them than just reading their press releases...

We as a society need desperately to get past the outdated notions of "boys will be boys" and that being drunk is an excuse for any sort of egregious behavior. Those sorts of behaviors weren't OK in the 50s, and the attitude towards them need to change. Silence didn't change them; confronting these abusive types to try to help them change, or shaming and shunning them if they won't, seems to be the only real path forward.

The events at PaizoCon and online with Frank Metzner hits close to home. I have two teenage daughters who enjoy a variety of geeky pursuits, like gaming and cosplay, and who we've started taking to conventions. We're trying to help them become strong, capable young women, but NO ONE should have to deal with the crap we're hearing about.

Part of that starts with trying to avoid problematic venues. There is a local gaming/SF convention that has a reputation of being rife with drunken and other despicable behavior; indeed, a teenage friend of theirs in a common area of the con was invited to a "room party"; he only backed off when he learned how truly underage she was. Needless to say, that con will never see a dime from me or my family, and I bring up the disgusting reputation of the con to anyone who mentions it. But such avoidance shouldn't be necessary. We've enjoyed a different small local gaming con for several years, and had a blast at GenCon a couple of years ago. But hearing about the PaizoCon incident reignites my concerns. It could happen anywhere.

That is probably what it will take to improve conditions, both in our hobby and society-wide. Driving the Neanderthals back to their caves, shining the light of publicity to send the cockroaches scurrying back to the shadows, then reducing the number of shadowy recesses that offer safe harbor for those of the abusive mindset. Speaking up. Educating and offering cautious acceptance for those that truly repent, apologize, atone, and demonstrate actual changed behavior should be possible for some. But at the very least, society needs to stop just accepting awful, destructive behavior as normal and acceptable.


----------



## mudbunny

Shasarak said:


> Look if a Player wants their PC to abuse children then what the heck is going to stop them?  Yeah thats right, the DM.
> 
> Because I am sorry but if your character is able to put the smack down on Giants and Dragons then what mechanics do you need to abuse a level 0 child?  And if you think you do need mechanics then Charm Person starts from level 1 and you dont even need Demons to get it.





Repeating "We can do some bad things, so all bad things are acceptable" over and over and ignoring the varied and different points that people are making when saying why the stat block for Falco is bad comes across as just a little bit intellectually dishonest. Now, you may honestly not be grokking the point that people are making, and that's OK. But, for many, many people, myself included, going from a vague description to a statblock that includes increasing charisma for raping kids is well over the line.


----------



## Elodan

Elf_flambe said:


> Thank you very much for sharing your perspective and experience. Well said, and I applaud you. I'd heard about the Frog God ad, but hadn't seen it. Thank you for sharing it. Seeing what a company actually does says a lot more about them than just reading their press releases...




According to Matt Finch of Frog God Games, the timing of the ad was a messed up coincidence.
https://www.froggodgames.com/forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media

Waiting to see what Paizo and Frog God actually do about this before adding them to my do not buy list, but am so far disappointed by the lack of more forthcoming responses to this.


----------



## pming

Hiya!

Well, for my 2¢, I'm going to have to take this whole thing the way I did the "racist Chult thing"; which is basically:  ...shrug...

Don't really care, sorry.

WHOA! Before everyone burns me at the stake, let me explain _why_ I'm being so seemingly 'monsterous' in my reaction. The simple fact is that it boils down to this: until _actual criminal charges are brought_, it _*MUST*_, by default, fall into the "not serious enough" catagory. If all that the 'rpg community' does is accuse, then back off, then say sorry, then there are a couple of things going on.

First is that these types of incidents obviously were NOT serious enough to warrant getting the police and the legal system involved. Because of that, it's basically a "my feelings were hurt" or a "he said, she said" school-yard drama. If the police were called, would they have arrested him for the accusation at hand?...or just for being drunk in public? As [MENTION=6779420]Guang[/MENTION] said back on page 4, if someone's livelihood and families well-being is at hand...some serious  had better have gone down. Otherwise it's like a trio of teenage girls claiming some male teacher they don't like "touched them inappropriately"...meaning the teachers career is ruined, _regardless_ of if any of it was true or not, or how serious or not it was.

Second, _IF_ this WAS a fully police-actionable offense, and the police _weren't involved_...then this sort of thing happening at game conventions _is never going to end/change_! Again...we are back into the school-yard drama section.

You all want to stop this kind of harassment? DON'T FULLY SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO IS HARASSED AND THEN DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT! Ergo... "...shrug... I don't care". Now, _*IF*_ she changes her mind and brings charges against him with all the evidence and testimony of those involved, I will be the first one in line to toss a couple hundred bucks into her GoFundMe legal fund. Until that happens, we, as a society, MUST simply take it as "Well...another drunk  s up and gives men, gamers and conventions a bad name. Way to go Bill...ya dick. Sorry you were the target of that, BJ, hope it never happens again".

Ok...now you can get out the tar, feathers, pitchforks, oil and torches. I'm ready. Let 'er rip!

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## mudbunny

pming said:


> Because of that, it's basically a "my feelings were hurt" or a "he said, she said" school-yard drama.




Have you...I mean...I don't know...have you missed the last couple of years??

READ ME


----------



## Elf_flambe

Elodan said:


> According to Matt Finch of Frog God Games, the timing of the ad was a messed up coincidence.
> https://www.froggodgames.com/forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media
> 
> Waiting to see what Paizo and Frog God actually do about this before adding them to my do not buy list, but am so far disappointed by the lack of more forthcoming responses to this.




Yes, I read Matt's statement, and hoped that meant they were doing things behind-the-scenes to address Bill's behavior. But now that I actually see the "ad", it seems more like a middle finger to the industry and those taking Bill to task for his actions. And if it's an ad, what is it advertising? I see no product or campaign mentioned. All I see is Bill saying, "Don't mess with me -- I'll do what I want". So calling it an ad would be disingenuous on Matt's part, at best. And that puts a whole different spin on things.

Doesn't mean I'm ready to march on FG HQ with flaming torches, but it does make me reevaluate whether I want to back their Rappan Athuk maps Kickstarter right now. They'll probably be add-ons to their upcoming 5E RA Kickstarter, anyway. So I'll wait and see. Maybe the path their company will follow will become clearer shortly.


----------



## God

Edit: Missed the timing. Oh well. I'll just say, Nicole is good goldurn people. And I appreciate the mea culpas from Shemeska and JJ. Doesn't fix the thing - - I mean, why in the good G-D F do we even have to discuss game mechanics for child abuse? - - but it's the apology that can be made.


----------



## kenmarable

Elodan said:


> According to Matt Finch of Frog God Games, the timing of the ad was a messed up coincidence.
> https://www.froggodgames.com/forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media
> 
> Waiting to see what Paizo and Frog God actually do about this before adding them to my do not buy list, but am so far disappointed by the lack of more forthcoming responses to this.




Even if it was a coincidence in timing, I doubt the ad was created and scheduled 5 months ago before PaizoCon. So even after this incident happened, and there was a formal report against Bill, and an internal investigation involving the partners of the company - they still felt it was something to make a joke about. 

So, maybe the timing was terribly coincidental. That doesn’t change the fact that they still “took this seriously” with an internal investigation... and then still decided to make this joke.

Edit to add: However, I don’t mean to sound like I’m jumping on you. It’s more aimed at them for claiming it was just a bad coincidence so not a big deal. That’s pretty pathetic. But as for you and everyone else’s decision to support them or not - I agree. That is a personal decision to make since there are competing issues like freelancers that depend on the work, etc. I just didn’t want to sound like I was attacking you - just their ridiculous “it was just a coincidence, mkay?” claim.


----------



## Henry

For me, it goes even more elementary than harassment and assault -- it's someone screwing with someone else for their own enjoyment, at the expense of the other person, and this pisses me off.
We're GAMERS, for the love of God! Our SOLE MISSION at these cons is to engage with others to have a fun time! The core of that is respecting someone else's feelings and space! And some people can't even manage THAT for a couple of days!

I've gamed with quite a lot of people from these forums (and Circvs, particularly); the majority of people are pretty decent people, a blast to hang out with, and yes, some will drink, some quite a lot, but in the end know when to hit their limit, when to shut up, and when to go to bed before they do anything stupid. We will run into jerks now and again -- and more rarely some really despicable characters from whom we disassociate with completely. If you can't learn basic boundaries around other people, and learn when you are doing something that is screwing with someone else's fun, I don't need you in my life, and I dare say the majority of people here don't need you either.

Heavy drinking is not an excuse, "political incorrectness" is not an excuse, "growing up in a different era" is not an excuse -- it shouldn't have been an excuse back then, either -- if any of these ends in unwanted physical contact, your good time ends where another person's begins. Walking away is ALWAYS an option rather than doing something that hurts another person.

I'm just stunned at the depth to which some things have gone, right under my nose, really. Maybe it's willful ignorance on my part, but I don't remember ever seeing these stories first-hand, I usually hear about them after the fact.


----------



## Hussar

pming said:


> Hiya!
> /snip
> 
> Paul L. Ming




You do realize that harassment isn't necessarily a criminal offense right?  That there are differing levels of harassment and that those different levels would be dealt with differently?  The police would only likely get involved if there was a credible threat to someone's safety (and since security had already nipped that in the bud, apparently, there wasn't).  However, that's not the be all and end all of harassment.

Good grief, we have a pretty open and shut case right here, and people STILL don't want to do anything about it.  HE ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG.  There's no question here.  He ADMITTED to harassing this woman.  It was WITNESSED by several people.  

I mean, sheesh, just how much evidence do you need?  And, no, it does NOT require the victim to bring charges before it can be actioned.  

Seriously, holy crap.  Everyone involved bloody well agrees what happened.  There is ZERO question about that.  So, shrugging it off because, "Well, she didn't complain very loudly, so, it must not be a big deal" is about the douchiest reaction in this thread.  And that's saying a LOT.


----------



## MechaPilot

You know,

When I was a little girl, I was always taught that standing up for someone who was being bullied, harassed, insulted or assaulted for anything other than the content of his/her character was simply basic human decency and doing the right thing.  It makes me very sad to see empathy, compassion, selflessness and standing up for the dignity and rights of others to be commonly derided (so much that it's been given a label to make it easier to demean that behaviour: "white knighting."  A name that's all the more ironic when used by fantasy gamers because paladins are often held up as paragons of virtue and champions of good in fantasy gaming, and not as "white knights."  If anything, paladins in fantasy gaming are complained about for being self-righteous jerks, not for standing up for others).

It also makes me sad to, once again, see the same kind of thinking that led another poster in the previous harassment thread to say I would be disrespecting men by wearing a skirt to a game.

It is nice to see the positive comments, but we're only about 100 posts in and the thread is relatively new.  I'm sure the more horrible stuff will be coming down the pipe any hour now.


----------



## Caliban

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> I NEED ATTENTION!  THIS IS ABOUT ME AND MY OPINION!  I'M USING CAPS BECAUSE MY OPINION MATTERS!
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




Cool story bro.


----------



## pming

Hiya!

_EDIT: Snip_

All right, I'll bow out. He was wrong. I totally agree. He was a drunken d-bag. No denying it. My point was that if no charges are going to be laid...then it doesn't matter as nothing will "be done" about it other than online platitudes and virtue signaling by some. Want to really make people think twice about drinking themselves stupid and aggressively pursuing someone? Take them to court. Otherwise....  "...sigh..."

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Mouseferatu

1) Given what these women go through, I am not remotely surprised that many of them don't bring charges, or want to draw official attention.

2) Harassment that doesn't reach the level of criminal is still a violation.

And your room for judging the victims in either case, no matter who you know or what you've been through, is _exactly the hell zero_.


----------



## Caliban

Justin Buell1 said:


> So you would have no problem with a Gay man drunkly following you around, telling you what a stud you are and making other sexual inappropriate comments?




You know, I actually had a drunk gay man climb into my bed after a party at my house once  (it was late and I was trying to sleep).   And despite being drunk, lonely, and horny - he stopped immediately when I told him I wasn't interested.   He was  a nice guy who got drunk and made an inappropriate advance - but I don't consider what he did harassment for one simple reason.   He stopped when I asked him too. 

That's the difference between harassment and a drunken mistake.   Harassment means they don't stop after you tell them you aren't interested.   

There is a big difference between a man and a women in a similar situation.   I'm over 6' tall and 200+ lbs, and at the time I worked out regularly.   Even if he didn't want to take "No" for an answer, I really wasn't worried about anything happening that I didn't want to happen.   He wasn't a physical threat to me.  Most women do not have that luxury.   

Like it or not, there is a different threshold for men and women when it comes to situations like this.  Some men complain about it being a double standard, but the fact is that men are more physically dangerous to women than women are to men (barring technological equalizers like pepper spray, knives and guns).   I'd never assault or harass a woman, but I'm physically larger and more imposing than 99% of the women I meet.  If they don't know me, I'm a potential threat.  I don't like it, but it's safer for them to think that way until they know me.   Even worse - most assaults on women are done by someone they know, not a stranger. 

The incident being discussed in this thread - she asked him to stop, and he persisted in following her and continuing to make advances - that's harassment, plain and simple.   It continued to the point where she felt threatened and other people felt the need to intervene.   That's not trivial, that's something serious and they dealt with it appropriately, using their best judgement at the time.


----------



## Mouseferatu

And what you're reading now _is_ "something being done."

These discussions? They're not platitudes and they're not "virtue signaling." (God, I despise that term.)

They draw attention to the bad actors. They warn people away from working with them. They cost them business. It's a personal and financial hit, and it's enough to encourage at least some companies to change their policies.

How about getting on board with trying to fix things instead of telling people who have already been victimized that they're _being victims the wrong way_?


----------



## evilref

pming said:


> First is that these types of incidents obviously were NOT serious enough to warrant getting the police and the legal system involved.




To be completely fair to them, Paizo at the time were totally willing to get the police involved, the victim didn't because of a complicated list of reasons.

And this is as the person who put this whole mess together into one big list of 'this is a bunch of stuff that has happened in the last x months/years'. And as much as I have issues with all the 'post event', I don't have any criticism at all for their handling of 'at the time'. To make clear, because you've posted a bunch of utterly untrue things, absolutely at the time Paizo were willing and happy to do the right thing and involve the police.

The rest of your post is just ignoring all the facts and spilling out nonsense that has nothing to do with what happened, and how, and why and what the issues were.


----------



## ddaley

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> _EDIT: Snip_
> 
> All right, I'll bow out. He was wrong. I totally agree. He was a drunken d-bag. No denying it. My point was that if no charges are going to be laid...then it doesn't matter as nothing will "be done" about it other than online platitudes and virtue signaling by some. Want to really make people think twice about drinking themselves stupid and aggressively pursuing someone? Take them to court. Otherwise....  "...sigh..."
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




Actually, some people will quit purchasing their products and quit supporting their kickstarters... so, bringing attention to it without pressing charges isn't a lost cause.


----------



## Hussar

And, there are things we can do, even if we are not really involved.  Threads like this make such behaviour all the more unacceptable.  Additionally, people can read this and stop buying products with this guy's name on it.  Convention organizers can see just how unacceptable this sort of thing is and feel that they can ban someone from the convention without taking a huge amount of flak for it.  

There is ZERO wrong with making this sort of thing public.


----------



## mudbunny

Rape culture in not just about rape.

Every time someone uses "well, she didn't go to the police, so it wasn't that serious" to dismiss a complaint, that is rape culture.

Every time someone says "well, she/he never actually physically harmed him/her" as a reason for it not being worth worrying about, that is rape culture.

Every time someone is worried about the impact on the harasser as opposed to the impact on the victim, that is rape culture.

Every time someone says "well, you didn't go public with it, so too bad for you", that is rape culture.

You (and a number of other people) have done the above in this thread, and it is actions like that which prevent the TTRPG hobby from being as open as it can be to non-white males.

Edit to add - You stated that discussions like this are worthless if criminal charges aren't laid and/or no-one goes to jail. You could not be more wrong. Because of discussion threads like this, there are a number of people who have indicated that, due to their awareness of the situation, they will no longer buy products from the companies involved. I know a number of people who have stepped away from freelance jobs with some of the companies involved. There are other companies who have indicated they will not work for nor will they accept work from the companies involved.

Actions have consequences.


----------



## MNblockhead

mudbunny said:


> Repeating "We can do some bad things, so all bad things are acceptable" over and over and ignoring the varied and different points that people are making when saying why the stat block for Falco is bad comes across as just a little bit intellectually dishonest. Now, you may honestly not be grokking the point that people are making, and that's OK. But, for many, many people, myself included, going from a vague description to a statblock that includes increasing charisma for raping kids is well over the line.




I don't play Pathfinder and have not joined PFS games at any of the local FLGSs, but I've thought about it—gaming is gaming and it is nice to try other systems.

But is the book where the Falco is printed PFS legal? If this kind of content is something I have a chance of coming across in PF's organized play—well, at least I know to avoid it. I may have to deal with some objectionable language or the occasional socially-stunted player at a an AL game, but the material has never been an issue and I've never worried about taking my son to an AL game. 

I'm a strong supporter of free speech and a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I have defended—and do defend—with money and actions—my fellow citizens' right to create, publish, and consume material that I find personally offensive. But as a consumer and as a parent, stuff like the Falco will make me steer a clear path around Paizo material and events. Which is fine, I suppose. If that's what the PF fan base finds acceptable, then they'd probably tell me not to let the door hit me on the way out. I'm just surprised that the second-largest TTRPG publisher would print such objectionable content in a major source book of theirs. 

I appreciate the author and developer stating that they realize it was a mistake—but it isn't as if Paizo stopped selling the book. Or did they? If I buy the PDF of the book at the Paizo store right now, will the Falco still appear in it? If so—Paizo's actions speak louder than its words. 

As for the Bill Webb incident. My sons and I have enjoyed Ms. Hensley's work. Some of my sons' first RPG experiences were Playground Adventure material. I'm also a big fan of her current employer and their software. Hearing about this incident is a punch in the gut. I don't know Ms Hensley personally, but my hobby would suffer if people like her were driven away from it. I don't understand anyone defending drunken goons like Bill Webb hitting on and then stalking women who rebuff their advances. I will try to avoid buying anything from Frog God Games or any other company he profits from. I will also be avoiding any convention where he is a panelist or speaker.


----------



## Matthan

I don’t have anything useful to add to the overall discussion. The idea of harassment and abuse is completely unacceptable to me and I want it to be prevented whenever possible and punished when it occurs. 

I am bothered by Frog God Games in this situation. I have supported their products. I have backed their kickstarters. It is not an exaggeration to say that I have hundreds of dollars of their material. I do not accept a reprimand towards Mr. Webb as sufficient in this case. I understand and appreciate the careful tact that the company took in dealing with the issue and respect Mr. Finch’s response. I do not need to hear a public statement from Mr. Webb, but I do want to hear from the company that Mr. Webb is undergoing some form of official harrassment training from an organization or official not connected to FGG as well as some form of treatment for his drinking. 

I understand and appreciate the need for privacy and respect for the victim. I do not believe that a statement of remorse along with a list of the steps being taken to prevent the situation from recurring would violate the respect the victim deserves. Such a response can be presented through Mr. Finch.

Furthermore, I believe it would be prudent of FGG to ask Mr. Webb to not attend conventions for the foreseeable future. Such an act would speak volumes towards the company’s commitment to preventing further incidents. By their now deleted social media post, the company is aware of the poor and unprofessional behavior of Mr. Webb at conventions. This matter should be addressed instead of joked about. 

Until something along these lines is done, I can’t in good conscience support the company. I was very much looking forward to Rappan Athuk for 5e and had begun to save for that Kickstarter. I know I only represent a single sale, but it is the only vote I have. 

Thank you to the staff at ENworld for reporting this. I do not follow other sites or Twitter and rely on this site for my rpg news. Please continue to report this story if there are any updates.


----------



## TanithT

WRT Folca, how do you expect to flesh out horrible, evil villains for players to fight against without backstory and at least some notion of how their mechanics and stats work? And is everyone going to start piling on Stephen King next for what he created? Or on people who enjoyed his most recent popular movie, which is all about a creepy child abuse demon? 

Some themes are legitimately triggering or upsetting for survivors of abuse and should in no way be introduced to any players without the full and informed consent of everyone at the table. They're definitely not appropriate for a public setting or for a game that may include actual minors. Other people may just find them distasteful and not consent to play with any of these elements. That consent or lack of should absolutely be respected. Conversely, adults who want to explore grimdark themes should be allowed to do so in their own home games.

Not so much appropriate for organized play though. That could be problematic for the reasons above.


----------



## MechaPilot

TanithT said:


> WRT Folca, how do you expect to flesh out horrible, evil villains for players to fight against without backstory and at least some notion of how their mechanics and stats work? And is everyone going to start piling on Stephen King next for what he created? Or on people who enjoyed his most recent popular movie, which is all about a creepy child abuse demon?




Why would anyone pile on king for Pennywise when IT also contains a far more objectionable underage gangbang by the protagonists?


----------



## MNblockhead

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> _EDIT: Snip_
> 
> All right, I'll bow out. He was wrong. I totally agree. He was a drunken d-bag. No denying it. My point was that if no charges are going to be laid...then it doesn't matter as nothing will "be done" about it other than online platitudes and virtue signaling by some. Want to really make people think twice about drinking themselves stupid and aggressively pursuing someone? Take them to court. Otherwise....  "...sigh..."
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




Nonsense. You can get the word out and not financially support Bill Webb or the companies and conventions he is involved with, and let them know why you are not supporting them. 

Boycotting can be an effective way to counter conduct and positions you disagree with.


----------



## Caliban

MechaPilot said:


> Why would anyone pile on king for Pennywise when IT also contains a far more objectionable underage gangbang by the protagonists?




I don't think that scene is in the movies, just the book.  And that scene is near the end of the book, so by that point you are already on board, and if I remember the book correctly its not a graphic scene.  You know it happened, but it's not described in an erotic fashion.   To me it came across as a somewhat clumsy/creepy attempt at female empowerment on the part of Mr. King.


----------



## Shemeska

MNblockhead said:


> But is the book where the Falco is printed PFS legal? If this kind of content is something I have a chance of coming across in PF's organized play—well, at least I know to avoid it. I may have to deal with some objectionable language or the occasional socially-stunted player at a an AL game, but the material has never been an issue and I've never worried about taking my son to an AL game.




Not to my knowledge no. The hardcover 'Book of the Damned' is not listed among the PFS additional resources. Additionally you can't play evil characters in PFS, and I cannot fathom a non-evil character performing Folca's obedience and thus gaining any of the associated mechanical boons. So no, you won't run into that in PFS.


----------



## MNblockhead

Shemeska said:


> Not to my knowledge no. The hardcover 'Book of the Damned' is not listed among the PFS additional resources. Additionally you can't play evil characters in PFS, and I cannot fathom a non-evil character performing Folca's obedience and thus gaining any of the associated mechanical boons. So no, you won't run into that in PFS.




Okay, good to know. Still find it in bad taste to have the material printed and sold, but glad to know that it would be unwelcome in a PFS game.


----------



## TanithT

As to the suggestions that Paizo handles harassment reports poorly, from my admittedly limited perspective as an attendee who had an entirely different but not completely dissimilar problem, I would have to say that they were tremendously interested in making sure that anyone who behaved themselves inappropriately was not invited back and was no longer associated with the brand. I opted not to name names for my own reasons, and suggested addressing the general policies of what constituted harassment rather than the individual in my case. I consider their response to have been fully appropriate and sympathetic, with immediate willingness to take real and meaningful action. I was told - and I fully believe it - that such policy discussion was already taking place and was being taken very seriously. 

The offense aimed in my direction was far less serious than the one described here, but it was sufficiently unpleasant to ruin my convention and cement my general disinclination to have anything much to do with gaming in the future. It's just not worth it. I can have lots of fun doing things outdoors by myself, and that fun does not come with a predictable side order of this kind of unpleasantness. The gaming community does, so I mostly just don't participate any more.  I've been an avid tabletop gamer since childhood - I still remember the D&D boxed set - but after more of these kinds of incidents than I even want to remember over the years, I just can't keep doing it. 

I don't delude myself that my quietly opting not to participate is a terrible loss to the gaming community. It's not. I'm no one special or important. No one knows who I am or has any reason to care. But the underlying reason is important, because it affects so many others. Including people you will probably never hear from, because they're just gone.  That's what happens when you don't fix a missing stair. There are so damn many missing stairs in the gamer community that it's a permanent minefield for folks who have the temerity to game while being female bodied. I do think the folks at Paizo generally do a very good job at being inclusive, non tolerant of harassment and highly protective of people who are harassed. But the underlying problem is too big and pervasive for any company, even the best, to fix all by themselves. They really are doing a lot of good and do not deserve to be vilified because they haven't done the impossible. I wish people would stop trashing them for what is very much not their fault. But they won't, and that's another part of the problem right there.


----------



## billd91

Shemeska said:


> Not to my knowledge no. The hardcover 'Book of the Damned' is not listed among the PFS additional resources. Additionally you can't play evil characters in PFS, and I cannot fathom a non-evil character performing Folca's obedience and thus gaining any of the associated mechanical boons. So no, you won't run into that in PFS.




Yeah, PFS is a lot less R-rated in general than some of the more adult-oriented materials like 'Book of the Damned'. They know kids participate in PFS too.


----------



## the_redbeard

Matthan said:


> I don’t have anything useful to add to the overall discussion. The idea of harassment and abuse is completely unacceptable to me and I want it to be prevented whenever possible and punished when it occurs.
> 
> I am bothered by Frog God Games in this situation. I have supported their products. I have backed their kickstarters. It is not an exaggeration to say that I have hundreds of dollars of their material. I do not accept a reprimand towards Mr. Webb as sufficient in this case. I understand and appreciate the careful tact that the company took in dealing with the issue and respect Mr. Fitch’s response. I do not need to hear a public statement from Mr. Webb, but I do want to hear from the company that Mr. Webb is undergoing some form of official harrassment training from an organization or official not connected to FGG as well as some form of treatment for his drinking.
> 
> I understand and appreciate the need for privacy and respect for the victim. I do not believe that a statement of remorse along with a list of the steps being taken to prevent the situation from recurring would violate the respect the victim deserves. Such a response can be presented through Mr. Fitch.
> 
> Furthermore, I believe it would be prudent of FGG to ask Mr. Webb to not attend conventions for the foreseeable future. Such an act would speak volumes towards the company’s commitment to preventing further incidents. By their now deleted social media post, the company is aware of the poor and unprofessional behavior of Mr. Webb at conventions. This matter should be addressed instead of joked about.
> 
> Until something along these lines is done, I can’t in good conscience support the company. I was very much looking forward to Rappan Athuk for 5e and had begun to save for that Kickstarter. I know I only represent a single sale, but it is the only vote I have.
> 
> Thank you to the staff at ENworld for reporting this. I do not follow other sites or Twitter and rely on this site for my rpg news. Please continue to report this story if there are any updates.




I've had a small conversation with FGG via Facebook to also let them know that I have found their response insufficient.  I'll miss Matt Finch's work, as well as Zach's (I have a lot of his Lesser Gnome stuff, don't know if he's actually published via FGG yet).  While I said I would like to hear from Bill himself, because from personal experience I've found that having to admit that I wronged someone can be pretty powerful and helpful for change.  I also told FGG that I wouldn't be attending any Cons with Bill Webb.  So far NTRPG (North Texas RPG con), a mostly OSR convention, still has Webb as a guest.

Anyway, I urge you and others bothered by this to let FGG and other conventions know.


----------



## Hussar

TanithT said:


> WRT Folca, how do you expect to flesh out horrible, evil villains for players to fight against without backstory and at least some notion of how their mechanics and stats work? And is everyone going to start piling on Stephen King next for what he created? Or on people who enjoyed his most recent popular movie, which is all about a creepy child abuse demon?
> 
> Some themes are legitimately triggering or upsetting for survivors of abuse and should in no way be introduced to any players without the full and informed consent of everyone at the table. They're definitely not appropriate for a public setting or for a game that may include actual minors. Other people may just find them distasteful and not consent to play with any of these elements. That consent or lack of should absolutely be respected. Conversely, adults who want to explore grimdark themes should be allowed to do so in their own home games.
> 
> Not so much appropriate for organized play though. That could be problematic for the reasons above.




There's a difference though.  Do we really need *mechanics* to detail child abuse?  Note, I'm not meaning to pile on Paizo here.  They readily admit a mistake and fair enough.  It happens, and, presumably, lessons are learned and we move on.

But, as a broader question, which is similar to stuff like the old Book of Erotic Fantasy and that ilk, does the game actually need mechanics for this?  What is being added to the game?  Is it going to make the game more fun for participants?  Is it an area that is lacking?  Well, not really.  

As far as exploring grimdark themes, again, it's not necessary that we have to tie that to a d20 Fort save is it?


----------



## Obryn

Elodan said:


> According to Matt Finch of Frog God Games, the timing of the ad was a messed up coincidence.
> https://www.froggodgames.com/forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media



Honestly, I'm not buying this excuse. It's too on-point, and doesn't make much sense in any other context.



pming said:


> Hiya!
> then it doesn't matter as nothing will "be done" about it other than online platitudes and virtue signaling by some. Want to really make people think twice about drinking themselves stupid and aggressively pursuing someone? Take them to court. Otherwise....  "...sigh..."



(1) The accusation of 'virtue signaling' is basically saying the other person isn't sincere in their beliefs and is just pretending to give a rat's ass about topics that they claim are important to them. Or, that they're not arguing in good faith. Basically, that they are a liar and showing off for their friends. And that's a _heaping pile of crap_. Maybe you don't intend to be saying that, but that's what you're saying.
(2) See this thread? This is things happening - or at least how things happen. The idea that police need to be involved for anything to be serious is asinine.



Shasarak said:


> Do you want to change the Book of the Damned to the Book of the Naughty?  In a game designed around killing things for their stuff?



Oh man. Excellent point. If it's not one extreme thing it must be the other extreme thing!

I had more things to say, but James Jacobs has said it was a mistake, and that's good enough for me. 



TanithT said:


> WRT Folca, how do you expect to flesh out horrible, evil villains for players to fight against without backstory and at least some notion of how their mechanics and stats work?



Easy. _You don't stat that stuff out_. If you _must_ have a child molesting demon (and I really don't think you must, but bear with me) there is absolutely zero reason to give it mechanical weight. "These monstrous pedophiles get terrible powers" and then leave it for the DM. Their mechanics and stats work - should they be used at all - in whatever way the DM deems appropriate for their home game. As opposed to a suite of specific spells custom-designed for raping kids.


----------



## MechaPilot

Hussar said:


> There's a difference though.  Do we really need *mechanics* to detail child abuse?  Note, I'm not meaning to pile on Paizo here.  They readily admit a mistake and fair enough.  It happens, and, presumably, lessons are learned and we move on.




I agree, both about the mechanics and about the piling-on.  If I were to have a child-abusing demon in one of my games (I won't.  But, for argument's sake. . .) I really wouldn't feel the need to make mechanics for the child abuse.  The things the demon has already done would've worked because of plot, not because of spells other people can learn.  The only reasons I can see for creating mechanics for those powers would be 1) if children were going to be in the area where the PCs fight the demon, and at best that would be about compelling a child (or children) to come between the demon and the PCs to make the fight harder or morally stickier.  Or, 2) having something a PC could do, or a MacGuffin to be used, to remove the fiend's influence from the children.




Hussar said:


> But, as a broader question, which is similar to stuff like the old Book of Erotic Fantasy and that ilk, does the game actually need mechanics for this?




I quite like the BoEF.  Now, don't get me wrong, many of the mechanics are awful and/or unnecessary, even in a game where romantic or sexual themes are allowed.  That said, the non-mechanical sections that talk about different types of marriages, setting a "rating" for the content allowed at the table, dealing with discomfort about openly talking about sex occurring in-game (whether on or off camera), and the sidebar that calls out mind-influencing magic as basically being magic roofies and talks about how using it that way would generally be criminal and abhorred by most people are quite good.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

looks like to me that someone get offense over words, speech  and jokes.
looks funny to me that the description of this ''horrible'' events are vague.  
In our society today being a victim/ofended grants you a lot of power over people, the case of weinstein was secual harrasment because he did couch tests and forced woman to get in sexual relations to his with COERSION, its very clear.
jokes, words, criticism, sarcasm and being a dick is not abuse.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]This *is* harassment, and victim blaming is utterly unacceptable. Anybody who wants to belittle or blame the victim being discussed here should probably consider leaving, just to save time. In your case leave the thread, please.[/FONT]


----------



## Morrus

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> Well, for my 2¢, I'm going to have to take this whole thing the way I did the "racist Chult thing"; which is basically:  ...shrug...
> 
> Don't really care, sorry.
> 
> WHOA! Before everyone burns me at the stake, let me explain _why_ I'm being so seemingly 'monsterous' in my reaction. The simple fact is that it boils down to this: until _actual criminal charges are brought_, it _*MUST*_, by default, fall into the "not serious enough" catagory. If all that the 'rpg community' does is accuse, then back off, then say sorry, then there are a couple of things going on.
> 
> First is that these types of incidents obviously were NOT serious enough to warrant getting the police and the legal system involved. Because of that, it's basically a "my feelings were hurt" or a "he said, she said" school-yard drama. If the police were called, would they have arrested him for the accusation at hand?...or just for being drunk in public? As @_*Guang*_ said back on page 4, if someone's livelihood and families well-being is at hand...some serious  had better have gone down. Otherwise it's like a trio of teenage girls claiming some male teacher they don't like "touched them inappropriately"...meaning the teachers career is ruined, _regardless_ of if any of it was true or not, or how serious or not it was.
> 
> Second, _IF_ this WAS a fully police-actionable offense, and the police _weren't involved_...then this sort of thing happening at game conventions _is never going to end/change_! Again...we are back into the school-yard drama section.
> 
> You all want to stop this kind of harassment? DON'T FULLY SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO IS HARASSED AND THEN DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT! Ergo... "...shrug... I don't care". Now, _*IF*_ she changes her mind and brings charges against him with all the evidence and testimony of those involved, I will be the first one in line to toss a couple hundred bucks into her GoFundMe legal fund. Until that happens, we, as a society, MUST simply take it as "Well...another drunk  s up and gives men, gamers and conventions a bad name. Way to go Bill...ya dick. Sorry you were the target of that, BJ, hope it never happens again".
> 
> Ok...now you can get out the tar, feathers, pitchforks, oil and torches. I'm ready. Let 'er rip!
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




The logical error you are making is believing that this is a binary situation with only two available resolutions - ignore or prosecute. You’re incorrect. There are other possible actions, including empathy, expose, discuss, and work on making things better. 

The fact that you say you don’t care? So don’t post. Posting in a thread to inform everybody how much you don’t care about the topic has a name - it’s called “threadcrapping”.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

A BRASILIAN GUIDE FOR TRUSTFUND AMERICAN KIDS FOR DRUNK DOUCHEBAGS
1) say the words: stop or no.
2) say the words: you are drunk dude, go home. 
3) leave the person 
4) go to a friend of this person and say: your friend is being a D1ck, control him.
5) you can go to the police or slap him and make a scene. 

Not to do
acting like a victim.
donate to my patreon.


----------



## Morrus

Aguirre Melchiors said:


> A BRASILIAN GUIDE FOR TRUSTFUND AMERICAN KIDS FOR DRUNK DOUCHEBAGS
> 1) say the words: stop or no.
> 2) say the words: you are drunk dude, go home.
> 3) leave the person
> 4) go to a friend of this person and say: your friend is being a D1ck, control him.
> 5) you can go to the police or slap him and make a scene.
> 
> Not to do
> acting like a victim.
> donate to my patreon.




Victim blaming is unacceptable. Leave the thread.


----------



## ZanzibarJones

There’s a lot here.  I’m struck by. Few things nebulon maybe there’s aren’t answered but:
1. Was Bill Webb banned per Paizo Con’s policies on harassment?
2. What was ‘the incident’? I feel like the only person who doesn’t know what actually happened and it isn’t stated anywhere.
3.  Was this person drunk driving?  There’s talk about how he had to leave the venue at some point with his family.
I wasn’t at Paizo Con so I’m not sure if it was a hotel or a hotel.


----------



## Morrus

Aguirre Melchiors said:


> looks like to me that someone get offense over words, speech  and jokes.
> looks funny to me that the description of this ''horrible'' events are vague.
> In our society today being a victim/ofended grants you a lot of power over people, the case of weinstein was secual harrasment because he did couch tests and forced woman to get in sexual relations to his with COERSION, its very clear.
> jokes, words, criticism, sarcasm and being a dick is not abuse.




Just noticed this little gem from earlier. I’ve already told you to leave, so this is more for everybody else — this *is* harassment, and victim blaming is utterly unacceptable. Anybody who wants to belittle or blame the victim being discussed here should probably consider leaving, just to save time.


----------



## MagicSN

I do not know what actually happened, so I am in no position to judge anyone. But apearently drunkenness of a representative (of a CEO) of a company played a role. In the (longer) past I also have been representative of a small company on events (not actually con's, but similar enough events). Back then for me (or any of my collegues) it was clear (without being spelled out) that alcohol was not an option for us then. What is done (or drunk) on Company Christmas party is a different thing, but while officially presenting your company - Alcohol is off limits there. This is at least my opinion.


----------



## Reynard

The continued focus on "we don't know the details" by some posters in this thread is emblematic of the ongoing problem in our community and society in general. It says, very starkly, that these sorts of things don't happen to "good girls" -- there must have been some mitigating circumstance: she was nice to him, she was drinking, she had a revealing outfit, she was playing hard to get. It is maddening, upsetting and sickening all at once. I would ask anyone who starts to write something along the lines of, "I'm not sure what to think since I don't know the whole story," to stop and instead BELIEVE THEM. Believe that they were harassed, that they felt threatened and unsafe, that they made it clear they wanted their victimizer to stop, that they wanted to get away but couldn't, that they did nothing wrong and this wasn't there fault. Anything else and you are feeding this monster, letting it live and grow.


----------



## TanithT

Obryn said:


> Easy. _You don't stat that stuff out_. If you _must_ have a child molesting demon (and I really don't think you must, but bear with me) there is absolutely zero reason to give it mechanical weight. "These monstrous pedophiles get terrible powers" and then leave it for the DM. Their mechanics and stats work - should they be used at all - in whatever way the DM deems appropriate for their home game. As opposed to a suite of specific spells custom-designed for raping kids.




Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.

The existence of kids is never a good excuse to censor adult material intended for adults. The existence of people who really don't like a thing or who may even be harmed by a thing is never a good excuse to ban that thing for everyone. My consumption of imaginary entertainment material, regardless of the content it imagines - whether it is extreme grimdark horror, pornography, etc - is my own choice. Not anyone else's. Not the government's and not yours. 

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable to say that people who don't or can't consent should not have to come into contact with such material. It's completely inappropriate for public or organized play and there should be clear warning labels involved so that only people who choose that flavor of entertainment ever have to see or hear about it past that warning label. But to say that no one is allowed to even think about a thing is very slippery slope indeed. I'm leery of it. 

Yes, stats for horrible, monstrously evil villains are a useful thing and I can think of many uses for the stat blocks that really don't involve anything remotely like what you are thinking. They are building blocks for a horrific back story that could be revealed to the players bit by bit, with the mere existence of such spells being part of the horror and part of what makes the evil cult so effectively and memorably evil. Could they possibly be used somewhere by creepy or wannabe edgelord people who actually like the idea of doing these things in their game? Well sure, and that's a huge PR nightmare for the company that produced it. Maybe don't add to that nightmare by deciding that you get to put limits on other people's stories, though. 

I have used such stats in some of my home campaigns, though I always discuss it ahead of time with my players and make sure everyone consents and is okay with encountering those themes. Also that they have the in-game choice of not engaging for whatever reason. These kinds of stats are very effective at inducing horror when their existence is revealed slowly over the course of the game. The players learn what has been going on and how the evil cultists work their will and gain their abilities. It is a very powerful story development mechanism. And it's not for everyone. Dropping this stuff on a player or a spectator who did not give full and informed consent prior to the game is horrible, especially if you do not know if they are an abuse survivor and/or really triggered by the material. Warning labels are completely appropriate and so is getting consent ahead of time. But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.


----------



## Obryn

TanithT said:


> Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.
> ...
> But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.



I don't think that's a response to the actual post I made, and I'm wondering if you're confusing me with someone else?

What people do at their home games as consenting individuals - which includes dealing with 'edgy' and/or grimdark and/or simply mature material - is their own business. That's what I meant by "leaving it up to the DM."

I _am _questioning the judgment of including such mechanical support in a mainstream published work, and it looks like Paizo themselves concur.


----------



## Alzrius

Why did this article not report on Matthew Finch's response to the report of a staffer being injured?

Literally, the article here reports on what Brookes says regarding an injury:



> when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer.




But then it truncates Matt Finch's statement, omitting several paragraphs, including the following:



> A series of tweets brought to our attention have mentioned that an altercation occurred at the time of the incident, and that a Paizo employee was injured. From talking to the individual who made the complaint we have not been made aware of any altercation beyond the behavior of Mr. Webb addressed in the complaint. And to date we have not received any information from Paizo or any other party regarding an employee being injured or how such an injury occurred.




Given how thoroughly it quotes the rest of his statement, including linking to where it appears, this seems like a rather dubious omission.


----------



## Eltab

If you are at an event, a drunk man is following you around being rude &c., you know that this person has a history of drinking in public, and his family is also at the event...
DO NOT worry about "embarrassing the wife / kids".  They _already know_ that he drinks too much.  They _already know_ he is a rude lout when drunk.
He's been like this at home too, probably for longer than he's been doing it in public.
The family haven't been able to control that behavior - any of it - with the tools at their disposal; they need reinforcements (and a shoulder to lean on).

That's all the criticism (not "blame") I will offer of the handling of the OP incident.  
The target acted from a proper and righteous consideration, and I detect no ill will or insincerity in her decision as she described it.  But her conclusion inhibits the needful steps to shut down this particular predatory individual.  Many targets thinking along the same lines means serial predators keep slipping off the hook and can repeat later.


----------



## Eltab

TanithT said:


> your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.



You are launching into War Mode for no good reason; the underlined word should read 'appropriate' not 'allowed'.

As a DM you should be well aware that narration and description are valuable tools that can be more effective to create a mood than a stat block.  I've found that watching Hayes Production Code -era (1960s and earlier) movies helps with at-table story-telling.  They had to imply or suggest things that modern movies would place front and center on-camera.
Black-and white Dracula was much scarier than the modern remakes, because the audience has to use its own imagination to fill in where the camera stops.  Story-telling in D&D works the same way.


----------



## mudbunny

TanithT said:


> Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.




I am not saying that you, as an individual cannot or should not stat those things up if you want. You do you and your group.

I am saying that I do not think it is appropriate for Paizo, as a company, to provide (and publish) stats that boil down to "+2 charisma every time you molest a child" in a book they publish.


----------



## TanithT

mudbunny said:


> I am not saying that you, as an individual cannot or should not stat those things up if you want. You do you and your group.
> 
> I am saying that I do not think it is appropriate for Paizo, as a company, to provide (and publish) stats that boil down to "+2 charisma every time you molest a child" in a book they publish.




I don't think molestation was actually detailed. Killing a cute bunny in front of a kid would also count.  This said, I agree that out of respect for community sensibilities, keeping such material well separated from the main body of the game is a good idea.


----------



## evilref

TanithT said:


> I don't think molestation was actually detailed. Killing a cute bunny in front of a kid would also count.  This said, I agree that out of respect for community sensibilities, keeping such material well separated from the main body of the game is a good idea.




Unnatural Lust

School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 2, witch 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one creature

Duration 1 round

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

Your target is filled with lust and desire for a single creature or object as designated by you at the time of casting. That creature or object must be within the spell's range and perceivable by the target of the spell. The target is filled with the compulsion to rush to the subject of its lust and passionately kiss or caress that subject on its next turn, taking no other actions. If the target would not normally have lustful feelings toward the designated creature or object, it receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw.

The other spells are less immediately obvious, but more pervasive in how they directly replicat the methods used by RL abusers. Only now, it's made magically better, and yet somehow that's okay?

Also, no, killing a cute bunny doesn't count:

...Promise him you will return and then release him with that haunting thought.

Because child abuse=+2 charisma is such an important mechanic.


So just consider this. Is it one of your players casting unnatural lust, sexually abusing a child and then 'magically covering it up, or you as the DM casting the spells, describing what happens to an audience who...what, are just getting this as backstory?. I mean, the only reason to include the mechanics is so they can be used, so are you making the saving throws, or your players?

Or, you know, it was a terrible idea and even more terribly implemented, that at the point they've hit multiple incidents of terrible events, this is the one thing Paizo's admitted fault on and said mea culpa for.


----------



## Caliban

As fascinating as the child molesting demon discussion is, this thread may not be the best place for it.  Perhaps move it to its own thread?


----------



## Nikchick

ZanzibarJones said:


> There’s a lot here.  I’m struck by. Few things nebulon maybe there’s aren’t answered but:
> 1. Was Bill Webb banned per Paizo Con’s policies on harassment?
> 2. What was ‘the incident’? I feel like the only person who doesn’t know what actually happened and it isn’t stated anywhere.
> 3.  Was this person drunk driving?  There’s talk about how he had to leave the venue at some point with his family.
> I wasn’t at Paizo Con so I’m not sure if it was a hotel or a hotel.




https://twitter.com/Sphynxian/status/882439561237995520

This is the link to the Twitter thread that an eye witness to the events posted.

PaizoCon takes place at a hotel.

Nicole


----------



## ZanzibarJones

Nikchick said:


> https://twitter.com/Sphynxian/status/882439561237995520
> 
> This is the link to the Twitter thread that an eye witness to the events posted.
> 
> PaizoCon takes place at a hotel.
> 
> Nicole




Ok. I read that. I’m still not seeing a description of what occurred. It leaves way to much to my interpretation. What was going on that Robert had to drag Bill Webb off of this person? Why weren’t the police notified? I’m just confused about what actually happened. I understand it was harassment and clearly upsetting but that is still a huge spectrum of possible behaviors.


----------



## Fildrigar

ZanzibarJones said:


> Ok. I read that. I’m still not seeing a description of what occurred. It leaves way to much to my interpretation. What was going on that Robert had to drag Bill Webb off of this person? Why weren’t the police notified? I’m just confused about what actually happened. I understand it was harassment and clearly upsetting but that is still a huge spectrum of possible behaviors.




You don't get to know. Sorry.

It was bad enough that Paizo was ready to involve law enforcement, until the victim requested that they didn't.


----------



## kenmarable

Nikchick said:


> https://twitter.com/Sphynxian/status/882439561237995520
> 
> This is the link to the Twitter thread that an eye witness to the events posted.
> 
> PaizoCon takes place at a hotel.
> 
> Nicole




Probably not worth the time responding to "ZanzibarJones" since the account was created an hour after Aguirre Melchiors was thread-banned and amazingly they not only have similar ideas but even the same birthdate! Just sayin'.  _(and reported - it's the mod's call on that)_

In other news... there has been encouraging discussion between Robert Brookes and Eric Mona (here and here)* about the PFS incident on Twitter. For one thing, the incident happened a few years ago (but Robert didn't state that at first for fear of inadvertently identifying the victim) and Eric Mona has said that unfortunately nothing ever reached them about it. So it really does sounds like someone in the middle might have quieted it on their own rather than Paizo upper management (and current Organized Play staff is different than who ran it a few years ago, I hear).  

It's a good sign, but still a ways to go to show that they will do better going forward and learn to make official policies a higher priority rather than just believing good intentions and in-the-moment crisis management will be enough. 


* There might be a couple other replies from Eric, but the way Twitter threads stuff, it's a pain to link to and get them all.


----------



## evilref

kenmarable said:


> In other news... there has been encouraging discussion between Robert Brookes and Eric Mona (here and here)* about the PFS incident on Twitter. For one thing, the incident happened a few years ago (but Robert didn't state that at first for fear of inadvertently identifying the victim) and Eric Mona has said that unfortunately nothing ever reached them about it. So it really does sounds like someone in the middle might have quieted it on their own rather than Paizo upper management (and current Organized Play staff is different than who ran it a few years ago, I hear).
> 
> It's a good sign an amazing sign along with James' post in this thead, in comparison to the ostrich in a hole impression they have been doing, but still a ways to go to show that they will do better going forward and learn to victim-orientated policies a higher priority rather than just believing good intentions and in-the-moment crisis management will be enough, and maybe we'll address any issue within 12 months.




As you say, it's a long way to go. They ignored and covered up the Paizocon sexual abuse and harassment, in the immediate aftermath of the revelation of historic sexual harassment in the PFS, they said nothing. They ignored complaints about 'child abuse gives you magic powers' and they've ignored Jessica Price's revelation about being silenced about her harassment. So of the four significant issues that I raised, they're up 2, and down 4 in any addressing of them, and really 1-3 because just saying 'our NDAs do X' isn't addressing the issue, it's yet another sop to try and look good, without doing anything.

For me, they have a long, long way to go, and the fact they have silenced all discussion about it on their forums, albeit tempered with the posts here and on twitter admitting mistakes, means they're not the good guys anymore, they're more concerned with image and hiding malfeasance than addressing it and fixing the problems.



Caliban said:


> As fascinating as the child molesting demon discussion is, this thread may not be the best place for it.  Perhaps move it to its own thread?




Thread talking about Paizo's issues and mishandling of sexual abuse and harassment, in which the Creative Director has admitted that the child abuse demon/cult, was a mistake, and you want to move it elsewhere and push off discussion about it?

Obviously we can't talk about systemic issues in the industry as a whole, or looking at multiple issues involving a single company and considering them all in an inter-related manner. Clearly we have to put them all into a different area and in no way consider how they might be related and speak to cultural issues and management problems, or how the industry in general is screwing this up (and there are far worse products than this, ennie award winning products even).

Ohh, wait, maybe we can actually consider it in a joined-up manner, the way that police and society and media put things together and talk about patterns and repetition and contributing factors. /s

No, far better to just put it all in its little niche and not consider how it might all tie together, that just makes it look worse afterall, doesn't it?

I get that you think it's a different issue, but it's all the same issue. Paizo had a reputation, a reputation built because of people who worked there. 3 of their significant voices on social issues have left in the last year, each time they did gamergaters and alt-righters were celebrating winning the 'culture war' because paizo had gotten rid of those people who said sexism was bad, or racism was bad or whatever. Quite literally, anti-progressive sites were celebrating people leaving Paizo. And there's an argument left there of whether those people who were championed as standing out on these issues,  would have made a difference on some of them.

And maybe, just maybe, it's worth considering every part of this on whether you feel you can trust them or not.

I mean, the same went for frog god, and you're not calling for their laughable defence to be spun off to a separate thread...



> * There might be a couple other replies from Eric, but the way Twitter threads stuff, it's a pain to link to and get them all.



Without going into detail, i've had personal exchanges with people there who have clearly expressed wanting to do better. And I want to believe them, but the same sort of personal exchanges apparently happened with Richard 3+ months ago, and nothing happened...


----------



## Caliban

evilref said:


> Thread talking about Paizo's issues and mishandling of sexual abuse and harassment, in which the Creative Director has admitted that the child abuse demon/cult, was a mistake, and you want to move it elsewhere and push off discussion about it?




Since the discussion of the demon has devolved into the game mechanics of how and when it molests or otherwise does evil things to children...yes, absolutely.   It's no longer contributing the main discussion and I think it detracts from it.


----------



## evilref

Caliban said:


> Since the discussion of the demon has devolved into the game mechanics of how and when it molests or otherwise does evil things to children...yes, absolutely.   It's no longer contributing the main discussion and I think it detracts from it.




I appreciate you ignoring all the actually substansive points and the broader issue, really helps move the conversation forwards.

I disagree with you, in case that wasn't obvious before.


----------



## Obryn

Caliban said:


> Since the discussion of the demon has devolved into the game mechanics of how and when it molests or otherwise does evil things to children...yes, absolutely.   It's no longer contributing the main discussion and I think it detracts from it.



It's pretty important context. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Caliban

evilref said:


> I appreciate you ignoring all the actually substansive points and the broader issue, really helps move the conversation forwards.




Nothing in your quote relates to the "child molesting demon" so I don't know why you think it was relevant.   I simply don't think the "child molesting demon" discussion makes or addressing any substantive points or broader issues.  [edit: and now you've removed the quote.   )



> I disagree with you, in case that wasn't obvious before.




Cool story bro.  Feel free to keep discussing the details of how a demon molests children in a thread about how a real person was actually harassed in real life.  Because the details of fictional acts of demon molestation are what is important here.


----------



## Caliban

Obryn said:


> It's pretty important context.



The fact that the demon exists in a published work and the company regrets it - absolutely important in context. 

I'm just saying that I really don't think the specific game mechanics of how to properly model a demon doing inappropriate things to children are important, even in context.    

Not saying it's not a topic worthy of in depth discussion if that's your thing.  Just that it probably deserves its own thread instead of distracting from the main topic of this one.


----------



## evilref

Caliban said:


> Cool story bro.  Feel free to keep discussing the details of how a demon  molests children in a thread about how a real person was actually  harassed in real life.  Because the details of fictional acts of demon  molestation are what is important here.





Paizo intimidated one of their staff to cover up sexual harassment
Paizo covered up sexual harassment at their con, and took no action against the offender
Paizo historically had an issue in the PFS with sexual harassment and handled it badly
Paizo published mechanically incentivised rules that gave you bonuses for child abuse

If you can't see the root cause and association here, and how it suggests the same systemic problems that multiple companies and industries are involved in, then I don't know what to say.

edit

Also, frankly, the mechanised methods of abuse that they included, directly mimic rl abuse, abuse I suffered. It's why I reacted to it, why I emailed people there, why I did threads about it, and together with all the other issues that have been exposed, why I did the post elsewhere that kicked this all off and went viral. And am enjoying my collection of threats of violence and other comments because I dared to call out Mentzer, or Bill Webb or Paizo.

You might not care that Paizo mechanised child abuse, two staff there have apologised for it - you could have reiterated the apology to move on to other issues, but instead it was about trying to dismiss the issue, dismiss how they mechanised actual, real child abuse and how it happens, and who cares because 'cool story bro'...


----------



## Caliban

evilref said:


> Paizo intimidated one of their staff to cover up sexual harassment
> Paizo covered up sexual harassment at their con, and took no action against the offender
> Paizo historically had an issue in the PFS with sexual harassment and handled it badly
> Paizo published mechanically incentivised rules that gave you bonuses for child abuse
> 
> If you can't see the root cause and association here, and how it suggests the same systemic problems that multiple companies and industries are involved in, then I don't know what to say.




Dude, you can't even quote me properly, much less understand what I was saying.   You seem determined to keep dragging the discussion further off topic.   Forget I said anything.


----------



## evilref

Caliban said:


> Dude, you can't even quote me properly, much less understand what I was saying.   You seem determined to keep dragging the discussion further off topic.   Forget I said anything.




Good stuff, forgotten it already.


----------



## kenmarable

evilref said:


> Paizo intimidated one of their staff to cover up sexual harassment
> Paizo covered up sexual harassment at their con, and took no action against the offender
> Paizo historically had an issue in the PFS with sexual harassment and handled it badly
> Paizo published mechanically incentivised rules that gave you bonuses for child abuse
> 
> If you can't see the root cause and association here, and how it suggests the same systemic problems that multiple companies and industries are involved in, then I don't know what to say.




Just as a quick aside - I think you had some bad cut-n-paste or quote tags there. Caliban said that, not me, and with the snark levels you two are getting to, I'd rather not be caught in the middle if I don't have to. Thanks! 

Edit to add: No prob! Computers can be weird sometimes.


----------



## evilref

kenmarable said:


> Just as a quick aside - I think you had some bad cut-n-paste or quote tags there. Caliban said that, not me, and with the snark levels you two are getting to, I'd rather not be caught in the middle if I don't have to. Thanks!




Thanks for that, fixed, not sure why it kept trying to refer back to an earlier post of you whenever I hit quote.


----------



## ZanzibarJones

It seems like the industry as a whole needs to begin addressing this. I really like what HollabackPhilly did in response to systemic harassment at some of the Comic conventions. This seems like an organization that could assist convention staffers and provide some training.

http://www.feministpublicworks.org/comic-con-anti-harassment-efforts/

-I updated that profile for you! I was led to this thread from facebook and just had questions. Everything I’ve learned said that open discussions and labeling of these behaviors was the proper path. I’ve been in a situation to stop workplace harassment and was proud to have stood up for it.


----------



## Elodan

kenmarable said:


> Even if it was a coincidence in timing, I doubt the ad was created and scheduled 5 months ago before PaizoCon. So even after this incident happened, and there was a formal report against Bill, and an internal investigation involving the partners of the company - they still felt it was something to make a joke about.
> 
> So, maybe the timing was terribly coincidental. That doesn’t change the fact that they still “took this seriously” with an internal investigation... and then still decided to make this joke.
> 
> Edit to add: However, I don’t mean to sound like I’m jumping on you. It’s more aimed at them for claiming it was just a bad coincidence so not a big deal. That’s pretty pathetic. But as for you and everyone else’s decision to support them or not - I agree. That is a personal decision to make since there are competing issues like freelancers that depend on the work, etc. I just didn’t want to sound like I was attacking you - just their ridiculous “it was just a coincidence, mkay?” claim.




No worries.  I was just pointing out Frog God Games' response to the timing of the ad.  I try to follow the old adage "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  My real question is when did Matt and the rest of the Frogs know about the incident.  It's possible (however slight) they didn't know about the incident until it came out  this week.

I just hate painting everyone in the company the same just because one guy decided to be a despicable jackass.  I hope they handle things correctly.  If not, I'm sure another company will appreciate my gaming dollars.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hey, guys, just a quick note. Please be careful with abbreviations. FGG (Frog God Games) is a very different company from FFG (Fantasy Flight Games). On matters of this sensitivity, it's important to make sure you're referring to the proper entity.


----------



## DaveMage

Elodan said:


> No worries.  I was just trying pointing out FFG's response to the timing of the ad.  I try to follow the old adage "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  My real question is when did Matt and the rest of the Frogs know about the incident.  It's possible (however slight) they didn't know about the incident until it came out  this week.
> 
> I just hate painting everyone in the company the same just because one guy decided to be a despicable jackass.  I hope they handle things correctly.  If not, I'm sure another company will appreciate my gaming dollars.




IIRC, they knew back in July.  I think most of us here didn't know about it until this week.  So disappointing.


----------



## TanithT

evilref said:


> Paizo covered up sexual harassment at their con, and took no action against the offender




Uh....while I can't speak for the other thing or the other people, I personally reported a much lesser incident at PaizoCon and received the utmost care, attention and serious offers for significant action to be taken. It was my choice not to name the individual, but instead to simply warn about a potentially touchy situation and suggest that a clear written policy about certain things would probably help everyone moving forward. 

What the Paizo staffer did was to prioritize my comfort level and let me know I would be supported in whatever I chose, whether that was remaining anonymous or not, naming the individual who was making myself and others uncomfortable or not, and that they would absolutely listen and take action as well as respect whatever my choices were that made me most comfortable.

Paizo isn't perfect or all powerful, and this particular problem is so bad and so pervasive that nobody can wave a magic wand and fix it. But they handled it absolutely just right, as well as those kinds of things possibly can be handled. Sometimes, taking no action *at the victim's request* really is the best thing a company can do for the victim. And that is exactly what I saw being prioritized. Is it the best thing for the community and possible future victims? Maybe not, but I cannot disagree with what they did prioritize, which is the safety and comfort of the person doing the reporting.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Shemeska said:


> As the author of the material in question let me just state that while I did not create Folca originally (I don't know who on staff created them to add to the appendix in the back of BotD 3 which I wrote the entirety of)* I was contracted the write the flavor text for all of the daemonic harbingers. Given the original plausible subtext for Folca it was not the most pleasant thing to write, but I didn't have the option to just not write something on my outline so I tried to present something that was hideous and evil.* I would not personally use Folca or their followers directly in a game, outside of them existing like a boogieman to drive home the absolute horror of Abaddon as a plane. I would never explicitly describe anything by Folca in a game, rather just let that particular monster stay in the dark and let the players' brains fill in the hideous specifics.
> 
> I can't comment on the mechanical aspects of the entry for Folca as the content changed during development and out of professional tact I'm not comfortable getting into a discussion about specific developer changes versus turnover. I apologize for any offense at the material. Please don't insinuate damaging and ludicrous things about anyone that wrote or developed the material.




The one thing I can suggest for future situations like this is that it is ok to say, "No" or to question the person that contracted you as to whether this sort of thing should be included.

Yes, doing something like that is often hard, I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but it takes courage to do the right thing sometimes.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

James Jacobs said:


> As the developer of the Book of the Damned, I can indeed confirm Folca was an error of judgement.
> 
> If I had a time machine I'd go back and just cut Folca from the book entirely, since the inclusion of an entity that mirorred something like Pennywise from "It" obviously missed the mark HARD. (I wasn't involved in the initial creation of Folca back in the softcover Book of the Damned 3, but that's irrelevant to the fact that he's in the hardcover version. That inclusion, an error, is on me.)
> 
> It's something I would do differently now. Book of the Damned is indeed intended to be about evil, but that doesn't mean having ALL evils represented in it is a good thing. There's a lot of content that I took specific steps to deliberately NOT include in the book, and in hindsight this one should have been left on the cutting room floor as well.
> 
> I apologize for it, for what's that worth, and am grateful for the fact that I've been given this chance to learn from the mistake going forward in my role as Pathfinder's Creative Director.




So, given that you feel the Folca should be cut from the book, has the PDF at least been edited to remove the Folca from the book? If it's something that you and Paizo feel is an error then you should be going back and doing what you can to correct the error.

Amending the PDF doesn't mean that the Folca won't exist in the hard copies, or in the PDF copies already out there, but it is something totally within Paizo's control to correct.


----------



## Libramarian

ZanzibarJones said:


> Ok. I read that. I’m still not seeing a description of what occurred. It leaves way to much to my interpretation. What was going on that Robert had to drag Bill Webb off of this person? Why weren’t the police notified? I’m just confused about what actually happened. I understand it was harassment and clearly upsetting but that is still a huge spectrum of possible behaviors.




I can't find a clear description of what happened either. Refusing to describe the sexual harassment in detail to protect the victim makes some sense, but I can't see why they're being so vague about what sort of injury the person who intervened suffered. It's interesting that Matt Finch of FGG makes no mention of Webb attacking anyone physically. Neither does the victim. The only person making that claim AFAICT is Brookes.


----------



## James Jacobs

The question of what to do with Folca going forward is a no-brainer—we won't be using him in Pathfinder content, and I'll ABSOLUTELY be using the lessons I've learned as well in striving to not repeat the mistake.

But it's unfortunately not so simple to just "cut" Folca from the book, since that would be a not-insignificant process of cutting the daemon harbinger's entry from the text and the compiled table and removing the artwork, since he wouldn't be in the book anymore. (We don't have a good piece of replacement art for this part of the book, alas, and adding a 3rd of a page of new words to fill up the missing space would further complicate things...) 

Another option would be to KEEP the artwork and just completely rewrite Folca to be a different type of daemon entirely and swerve his themes completely away from anything to do with child abuse. Folca could just as easily be a daemon associated with poisoning food, for example, and the treat he's holding in his illustration becomes a sneaky attempt to poison someone. But that doesn't change the fact that the imagery of a creepy thing holding out a piece of candy evokes VERY specific reactions and imagery. Would simply rewriting him be enough? I don't know, and I'd love folks to shoot me an email at james dot jacobs at paizo dot com with their thoughts on that.

Anyway... as I've said above it's a complicated thing that will take time for us to fix if we decide to go that route. But it's also a very IMPORTANT thing to look into. I'll be talking with Erik ASAP about the potential of adjusting the PDF version of the book, in any event. The final decision to do so is not mine to make so I can't make promises about this, but I'm gonna be doing what I can to make it right.


----------



## Atlictoatl

James Jacobs said:


> Would simply rewriting him be enough?



Looking at a table of daemonic harbingers and seeing one entry with spheres of influence over child abuse would certainly stand out to me. It's difficult for me to assess to what degree that would be so without examining the rest of the entries for context. Note that it absolutely will be triggering for certain individuals, though by publishing a list of daemonic harbingers and their spheres of influence, you're essentially publishing a list of triggers and are presumably okay with that.

Expanding beyond an entry in a table to a description of the daemon, of its activity, of the activity of its worshippers, etc. is traveling much further along the spectrum of questionable taste. Surely, a prospective GM or player who saw the table entry and wanted to expound on Folca for their game would be best left to their own devices in doing so, yes? Does Paizo really want to be in the business of instructing their audience how specifically to portray child abusers? Still, you or others may feel it has some value to a prospective group that intends to focus on fighting such elements.

Including a visual depiction goes a step further, cementing a specific construct with visual imagery. If it's good art, it'll be designed to be disturbing and to imprint itself on the reader. Does Paizo want to be in the business of the visual depiction of child abuse or molestation?

It's conceivable that the above might be defensible, though you'd be pretty far along the tightrope in doing so.

Publishing mechanics whose only utility is to simulate sexual abuse is so far across the line that it's simply indefensible. There is no reason to ever publish something like that. If players or GMs wish to simulate sexual abuse in their games, let them come up with their own mechanics for it. IMO, no right-minded gaming company would ever want to be associated with that.

At a bare minimum, if it's within your means to remove content already published, you should absolutely excise the mechanics that are explicitly for sexual abuse. There's just no good reason for those to exist.

Please note that I am not a survivor of abuse and it hasn't touched me directly, so my tolerance for this topic and my ability to remain non-triggered will be higher than those who do have direct experience. Their opinion may not be as lenient as the one I've expressed here.


----------



## fantasmamore

Somehow his book "Bill Webb's Book of Dirty Tricks" seems a little bit frightening right now. 

On another note, how is it that if I say that a burglar got into my house the first thing people ask is "Are you ok?" and if a woman says that she's been sexually harassed the first thing people say is "Prove it!"? 
Nobody should feel unsafe or threatened or just uncomfortable for whatever reason. The person that makes other people feel this way should be punished. And I don't mean only the law. We are consumers, clients, customers, whatever, we have the power to make a choice.

And since I probably missed it, where is Mr Dirty Tricks' public apology?


----------



## Steffen Haeuser

Reynard said:


> The continued focus on "we don't know the details" by some posters in this thread is emblematic of the ongoing problem in our community and society in general. It says, very starkly, that these sorts of things don't happen to "good girls"




If you refer to my post "one post earlier" in no way did I imply any such accusations on the victim or not even did such a thought cross my mind. I only said *I* am not in a position to judge anyone regarding an event where I am not present. Others (including the victim for example) obviously are in a position to judge here.

The reason for my post was a different one: I am firmly of an opinion that I can be a judge if drinking much alcohol while representing your company is "normal" or "okay" or sounds fishy (the last one is correct, the other two NOT). In some posts in this thread the Alcohol was used as an "Excuse". This does not work. If anything it makes it even worse (at least in my worldview). I like an eveningbeer or whatever myselves, but while officially representing your company? Really? And so much that you are described as "drunk" by other people?


----------



## Eltab

James Jacobs said:


> Would simply rewriting (Folca) be enough?



You might find inspiration by reading through 3e _Heroes of Horror_.  It includes essays on how to handle nasty subject matter without grossing out the rest of the table.
The artwork I remember from it was a hag-ish being with a bunch of children around the table, eating a bit cut from one child's arm.  Those of us who are natural Paladins instantly understood who needed a _Shield_ and who needed a Smiting.

As I've indicated in another conversation within this thread, using 'reaction shots' and third-party descriptions of a horrible act, rather than details of the horrible act front-and-center, can set a mood and engage the players' imagination.  The players will motivate themselves to take care of the Evil.


----------



## Eltab

Libramarian said:


> I can't find a clear description of what happened either.



Go back and re-read Post Number One.

It was a better description than the material we had to work with when I was on Jury Duty.


----------



## Demmero

Libramarian said:


> I can't find a clear description of what happened either. Refusing to describe the sexual harassment in detail to protect the victim makes some sense, but I can't see why they're being so vague about what sort of injury the person who intervened suffered. It's interesting that Matt Finch of FGG makes no mention of Webb attacking anyone physically. Neither does the victim. The only person making that claim AFAICT is Brookes.




It's likewise interesting that someone at FGG chose to label the post addressing the sexual harassment at a convention as "Response from Frog God Games to events on social media." Talk about misleading: It makes it sound like the incident itself happened on social media...just another internet spat.

The actual post itself gets straight to the point about the allegations...provided the viewer actually bothers to click on the title link, that is.

http://www.talesofthefroggod.com/forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media


----------



## GMSkarka

Eltab said:


> Go back and re-read Post Number One.
> 
> It was a better description than the material we had to work with when I was on Jury Duty.




Exactly.  At this point "I can't find a clear description of what happened", or "I haven't seen documentation", is a clear red-flag for somebody looking to engage in real-world rules lawyering, for whom none of the extensive details will EVER be enough.

Same thing is happening with the Mentzer issue.


----------



## BookBarbarian

fantasmamore said:


> On another note, how is it that if I say that a burglar got into my house the first thing people ask is "Are you ok?" and if a woman says that she's been sexually harassed the first thing people say is "Prove it!"?




This is an elegant statement of a big problem. A big problem that stops victims of harassment and abuse from coming forward.


----------



## Libramarian

Eltab said:


> Go back and re-read Post Number One.
> 
> It was a better description than the material we had to work with when I was on Jury Duty.



So this?

"Reducing the event to a level that will maintain confidentiality, my understanding based on my investigation was that Bill Webb took an action and engaged in speech that could be construed as a sexual advance or as gender-dismissive."
​
That's better than what you had to work with when you were on jury duty?

Matt Finch also says this later in his statement, which as @_*Alzrius*_ pointed out earlier seems to have been intentionally omitted by @_*Christopher Helton*_ in his article:

"A series of tweets brought to our attention have mentioned that an altercation occurred at the time of the incident, and that a Paizo employee was injured. From talking to the individual who made the complaint we have not been made aware of any altercation beyond the behavior of Mr. Webb addressed in the complaint."
​
So he doesn't think anyone was attacked and injured. Finch also originally posted a screenshot of FGG's conversation with the person who made the harassment complaint, saying:

"In terms of the affected person’s own view on the matter, and as a lead-in to a discussion of the recent tweets, we believe that the following communication will give third parties a better understanding of the context of the event...."​
But the screenshot is now deleted. In the RPG.net thread he explains,

"Edit: the person who filed the complaint has called me to talk about the event, which was a very productive call. They did say that they would prefer I not keep up the image that was posted here, so I've taken it down."
​
There is a serious disagreement here between Finch/FGG's investigation and Brookes' account on Twitter. I hope the victim isn't feeling pressured by the Brookes side to keep quiet about what happened lest her account belie theirs.


----------



## Libramarian

fantasmamore said:


> On another note, how is it that if I say that a burglar got into my house the first thing people ask is "Are you ok?" and if a woman says that she's been sexually harassed the first thing people say is "Prove it!"?



Not an appropriate analogy for the current situation. Firstly because the victim here is not the one publicizing their harassment. She actually has stated that she considers the matter closed and would prefer if everyone stopped talking about it. So it's more like your neighbor on the left is making a lot of noise about your neighbor on the right burgling the home of your neighbor across the street, and their account is much more sensationalistic ("and they killed their dog!") than that of the person whose home was actually broken into.


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> I hope the victim isn't feeling pressured by the Brookes side to keep quiet about what happened lest her account belie theirs.




That's bloody ridiculous. No, the victim (who many people know - it's not some anonymous person) is not being pressured by Brookes to keep quiet. You know people can read this, right? It's your outside voice.


----------



## jerryrice4949

So here is my understanding of this lengthy thread-

1) Bill Webb harassed someone at Paizocon.  Behavior that is unacceptable and should never be tolerated.  While I understand the reason the police were not called I believe that was a serious mistake.  Behavior should have consequences and this is a natural consequence.  Maybe he would have been arrested maybe not.  But this would have been the most direct and natural consequence for his behavior.
2) Someone may or may not have been physically injured
3) FGG games acknowledged his behavior but any real consequences are unclear.  Since he is the founder/partner it is also unclear what recourse the other partners would have.
4) Based on many accounts he needs intervention for his drinking and behavior that sounds routinely poor at such events.

Having bought FGG products in the past I am not sure what I think about future support.  It is a complicated picture considering contractors and many variables I don't know.  But it would help me feel more at ease, if a more aggressive statement followed by some sort of sanctions by FGG was issued but I am not sure the actual authority of the other partners.  Looking at their current KS though, there is no mention of this in the comments which makes me believe most of their backers are unaware or unconcerned.


----------



## the_redbeard

Libramarian said:


> Not an appropriate analogy for the current situation. Firstly because the victim here is not the one publicizing their harassment. She actually has stated that she considers the matter closed and would prefer if everyone stopped talking about it. So it's more like your neighbor on the left is making a lot of noise about your neighbor on the right burgling the home of your neighbor across the street, and their account is much more sensationalistic ("and they killed their dog!") than that of the person whose home was actually broken into.




Since so many people can't seem to find it (even though it is on the first page of comments), I'm posting below the already posted testimony of the affected individual.

Note that she is speaking out *because of the treatment by the doubters towards the people who helped her.*  I'm glad she's able to move on and is still a part of the hobby and industry.

To me the issue is whether Bill Webb will come clean and take responsibility for his behavior and whether conventions will continue to allow his presence if he does not change his ways.  I've communicated my feelings with FGG folks.  Some of the partners are reportedly out of the country so they are currently unable to formulate more of a response than they have.

BJ Hensley post on Paizo, regarding the incident
"Paizo Con: The only thing I desire is peace and to be left alone to create.

As the victim in this particular situation, I have watched in public silence as the world dissected my story and speculated as to the intimate details. I looked on and relived these events as people believed, disbelieved, defended me passionately, and cast doubt on the situation. I received many wonderful messages from those who were there or heard what happened, expressions of anger on my behalf and an outpouring of love. And yet I am heartbroken by what I see, not due to the event itself but that these same individuals, who aided me when I was in need, are being verbally assaulted and accused of less than exemplary behavior. So, despite being told that I in no way needed to by countless individuals on all sides of the event, I’ve chosen to speak. I’ve selected Paizo as my medium to do so to ensure that everyone can see my words.

What happened at Paizo Con was not appropriate. The offensive behavior I dealt with from this person was very inappropriate, unwanted, and frankly a bit scary. However, Paizo’s staff did all they could to ensure I was safe, they made all the right offers to take care of the situation, and when I declined some of their suggestions they chose to protect me with their silence. Nearly every member of Paizo’s staff interacted with me in some way during these awful events. Many offered protection, others walked me to my room, spoke out on my behalf, held my hand while I was afraid, and even physically stepped in when the clearly inebriated individual in no way wanted to hear my “No thank you.”. In the end, Lisa Stevens herself shed tears alongside me as she heard my story. Her concern was genuine, her anger fierce, and at no point was there any disbelief. She passionately argued to be able to defend me and doesn’t deserve to be accused of doing anything less than her very best to protect me while I was in her “house”. Paizo made me feel welcome, believed in, and defended me in every way I would allow.

No one tried to silence me, I silenced them.

The individual who stalked me through the halls that day was far too drunk to drive, he had children staying at the convention, and I asked that he be allowed to leave when sober. I also requested the incident be kept as quiet as possible to protect his family. Additionally, several of my friends work at the very company this man represents, I didn’t want their professional lives impacted by a public scandal any more than I wanted anyone else’s to be. Members of Frog God Games checked in on me and handled their side of the mess as they saw fit. I protected others and I tried to protect myself. I’m a private person who’s survived far worse storms than what happened here and I simply wanted to resolve the issue for all involved and put it behind me before it resurfaced more traumatic events in my mind. We all have to choose what hills we die on. I didn't feel the need to make this one mine. I work here. This industry is my life, it’s where my friends are, it’s my creative outlet; the place where I bring to life all the crazy ideas parading through my mind, and all I want to do is take my imagination out for a stroll and create games we all enjoy.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all the people who cared enough to stand up for me, walk beside me, and protect me from the public. I personally consider this matter closed and would prefer everyone else do so as well for the sake of my own privacy and personal sanity. – BJ Hensley"

From here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uoph?Open-Letter-From-Paizo-CEO-Lisa-Stevens


----------



## Libramarian

Morrus said:


> That's bloody ridiculous. No, the victim (who many people know - it's not some anonymous person) is not being pressured by Brookes to keep quiet. You know people can read this, right? It's your outside voice.




I said feeling pressured. Perhaps just by the thought of how embarrassing it would be for him if she were to come out now and say his account isn't accurate.



the_redbeard said:


> Since so many people can't seem to find it  (even though it is on the first page of comments), I'm posting below the  already posted testimony of the affected individual.
> 
> Note that she is speaking out *because of the treatment by the doubters towards the people who helped her.*  I'm glad she's able to move on and is still a part of the hobby and industry.




I read that. She seems to be writing primarily to defend Paizo and their  handling of the situation. It's interesting she doesn't thank or defend  Brookes.


----------



## evilref

It's interesting how you keep trying to not so subtly defend Bill Webb and raise questions and doubts about the witnesses and victims who've come forwards.

I do hope you're not being pressured into it.

/s


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Libramarian said:


> I said feeling pressured. Perhaps just by the thought of how embarrassing it would be for him if she were to come out now and say his account isn't accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> I read that. She seems to be writing primarily to defend Paizo and their  handling of the situation. It's interesting she doesn't thank or defend  Brookes.




You could look at it the other way. She has not said that anything Brookes has claimed has been incorrect. Interesting how she doesn't call him out, or suggest that he's a liar.

Funny how you can flip it 180 degrees, without any factual evidence either way, to support whatever argument you wish to make.


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> I said feeling pressured. Perhaps just by the thought of how embarrassing it would be for him if she were to come out now and say his account isn't accurate.




You’re just making things up.


----------



## fantasmamore

Libramarian said:


> Not an appropriate analogy for the current situation...




When we hear of a criminal act we ask about the victim's well being. When we hear of a woman being sexually harassed we* ask if this is true. It's the perfect analogy. We should change the way we think. We cannot be sure that mr Webb is guilty since there is no judge ruling and everyone is a priori innocent but we certainly cannot think that the victim is lying or exaggerating just because.. because what really? What's our excuse?

* not all of us of course...


----------



## Caliban

Libramarian said:


> I said feeling pressured. Perhaps just by the thought of how embarrassing it would be for him if she were to come out now and say his account isn't accurate.




Everyone involved in the incident agrees that it happened and that it was inappropriate.  The target, the aggressor, the companies involved.   

Interesting how you don't seem to want to believe anyone involved in an incident you didn't witness and weren't part of. 

Almost as if you have your own agenda an are trying twist the facts to suit it.  

Interesting...very interesting...


----------



## James Gray1

My name is J Gray. I have the privilege of working for BJ Hensley at _Playground Adventures_ as "the Professor of Puzzles". In the time I've known Ms. Hensley I've learned many things. Among them:

1. BJ Hensley does not get pressured into anything. She does what she believes is best for herself, the people she cares about, and the people who rely on her.

2. If BJ Hensley says something happened? It happened. If she says she was harassed, she was harassed. If she said the situation was unwanted and a little bit scary, then it was. If she says she was not silenced, she was not silenced. 

BJ Hensley is not "a fan girl who flirted and got more than she bargained for" as some have suggested. Nor is she a wilting flower who "was pressured into saying something for the good of Paizo" as others have suggested. BJ Hensley is a professional member of the gaming industry who manages the business affairs of not one but two different companies and, frankly, someone who doesn't put up with crap she doesn't have to.


----------



## kenmarable

“Interesting that...” is right up there with “some people say...” as one of those rhetorical tricks to imply something without actually backing it up. Just hold your hands up and say, well, *I* didn’t claim that. 

For example:

*Some people say* the EN World servers run on the blood of Morrus’s enemies. *Interesting that* no one is denying it. *One might think* there was something to hide. *I’m not saying* stray animals disappear whenever there is a server upgrade, but *it does make you wonder.*

If you think Robert is lying, then say that and be willing to back it up. Otherwise this rhetorical handwaving adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## MackMcMacky

BookBarbarian said:


> "On another note, how is it that if I say that a burglar got into my house the first thing people ask is "Are you ok?" and if a woman says that she's been sexually harassed the first thing people say is "Prove it!"?" This is an elegant statement of a big problem. A big problem that stops victims of harassment and abuse from coming forward.



 It's not complete though. If you identify a particular person as the person who burgled your house then people may very well say, "Prove it."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MackMcMacky said:


> It's not complete though. If you identify a particular person as the person who burgled your house then people may very well say, "Prove it."




As someone who worked (briefly) in the American criminal justice system, I can say that there's a distinct difference in the way victims of sex crimes are treated vs other crimes.  There's a certain reservoir of people whose default reaction is to blame the victim that just isn't present with other crimes.

This isn't the same as our maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty."  This is "even if it happened, it's not really the perp's fault."


----------



## Morrus

kenmarable said:


> “Interesting that...” is right up there with “some people say...” as one of those rhetorical tricks to imply something without actually backing it up. Just hold your hands up and say, well, *I* didn’t claim that.




It's right up there with "I'm just asking questions", otherwise known as "JAQing off". Horrid little tactic, that one.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions


----------



## fantasmamore

MackMcMacky said:


> If you identify a particular person as the person who burgled your house then people may very well say, "Prove it."




It's not about the identity of the person. Noone said that it wasn't Webb. But some people implied that it wasn't that serious, maybe the victim was wrong etc. And look, it's not that I am trying to force my opinion on anyone and I might well be wrong. But there are people that when they hear about sexual harassment think that it was the victim's fault or that the victim is lying or that he/she is exaggerating etc. Does it bother you? Because it bothers me. A lot. It makes me feel shame for how we still behave to the women, to the physically weak, the different from us. It's like victimize them again...


----------



## JacktheRabbit

fantasmamore said:


> When we hear of a criminal act we ask about the victim's well being. When we hear of a woman being sexually harassed we* ask if this is true. It's the perfect analogy. We should change the way we think. We cannot be sure that mr Webb is guilty since there is no judge ruling and everyone is a priori innocent but we certainly cannot think that the victim is lying or exaggerating just because.. because what really? What's our excuse?
> 
> * not all of us of course...




Just because what?

How about innocent until proven guilty? Is that a good enough reason. In this specific situation enough information is out there to make a pretty intelligent decision but that is not every situation.

If Person A says he/she was assaulted the automatic respond should NEVER be to instantly believe that person and start calling Person B a rapist.

My own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying. Because I automatically side with the attacker? No, not at all, because it is 1000% a much less horrible thing to find out someone was a liar as opposed to find out someone truly was sexually assaulted.


----------



## evilref

DocMoriartty said:


> Just because what?
> 
> How about innocent until proven guilty? Is that a good enough reason. In this specific situation enough information is out there to make a pretty intelligent decision but that is not every situation.





Well, no, because it's not a court of law. Are you saying this about all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers?

At no point has Bill Webb denied it, in fact via a terrible, terrible attempt to downplay what happened, he's admitted it, in no way has he claimed 'no I did not sexually harass someone', he's admitted it, he's sort of somewhat, in a roundabout way, apologised for it.

So, no 'innocent until proven guilty' has nothing to do with it, because this isn't a court.


And no, the attitude should be to believe the victim - why do you automatically assume the victim is lying? If a friend of yours says they were mugged, do you automatically assume they were lying? If you read a bad restaurant review, do you automatically assume that the reviewer is lying?

I'm just going to go with saying no, of course you don't. But here we go, woman complains of sexual harassment and you hope they're lying, you think  that we shouldn't believe them because...ohh, wait, it's a woman complaining of sexual assault, we can't go believing them. Where would that lead to...

This isn't a court, it's basic human decency. And, again, in this case Bill Webb has admitted it, so you know, maybe stop with the rubbish trying to discredit all victims?


----------



## JacktheRabbit

evilref said:


> Well, no, because it's not a court of law. Are you saying this about all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers?
> 
> At no point has Bill Webb denied it, in fact via a terrible, terrible attempt to downplay what happened, he's admitted it, in no way has he claimed 'no I did not sexually harass someone', he's admitted it, he's sort of somewhat, in a roundabout way, apologised for it.
> 
> So, no 'innocent until proven guilty' has nothing to do with it, because this isn't a court.
> 
> 
> And no, the attitude should be to believe the victim - why do you automatically assume the victim is lying? If a friend of yours says they were mugged, do you automatically assume they were lying? If you read a bad restaurant review, do you automatically assume that the reviewer is lying?
> 
> I'm just going to go with saying no, of course you don't. But here we go, woman complains of sexual harassment and you hope they're lying, you think  that we shouldn't believe them because...ohh, wait, it's a woman complaining of sexual assault, we can't go believing them. Where would that lead to...
> 
> This isn't a court, it's basic human decency. And, again, in this case Bill Webb has admitted it, so you know, maybe stop with the rubbish trying to discredit all victims?




This is a forum and my rubbish is no less important than your rubbish so dont dare try to tell me to shut up.

No you do NOT automatically believe the victim. Does the Duke Lacrosse Team ring a bell? When someone makes an accusation you can sympathize, you can offer to help them. You do NOT automatically that them at their work with no evidence and effectively destroy another persons like which is what a rape accusation will do.

And to follow up on your point it is basic human decency to never destroy a persons life based purely on the word of another person.


----------



## Sunseeker

DocMoriartty said:


> This is a forum and my rubbish is no less important than your rubbish so dont dare try to tell me to shut up.
> 
> No you do NOT automatically believe the victim. Does the Duke Lacrosse Team ring a bell? When someone makes an accusation you can sympathize, you can offer to help them. You do NOT automatically that them at their work with no evidence and effectively destroy another persons like which is what a rape accusation will do.
> 
> And to follow up on your point it is basic human decency to never destroy a persons life based purely on the word of another person.




Ah yes here we go: the victim in your eyes is Bill Webb, it's _his_ career on the line, it's _his_ life on the line, it's _his_ destruction you're concerned about.

You're not disbelieving the victim because you lack evidence, that's complete BS, especially since there is _plenty_ of evidence, far more than a good deal of sexual-crimes ever have, you're disbelieving because you don't believe BJ Hensley is actually the victim.  You see Webb as the "potential victim" of her "rape accusation" and that is where you place your concern.

Noone is asking you to white-knight Hensley and destroy Webb's life.  All they're asking you to do is _believe_ her.  That's IT.  Nothing else.  You don't have to write an angry forum post at Webb.  You don't have to make an angry phone call to Paizo.  You don't have to do _anything at all_ other than believe that Hensley is telling the truth.

But you don't care, because you don't think Hensley actually _is_ the victim here.  You think Webb is the _potential_ victim and that's who you care about.  A _man_ being falsely accused of rape, that's your soap box.  That's your concern: "false rape".  All because in the tens of thousands of sexual crimes that happen in the USA, one or two of them turn out to be false.  Yeah, that sucks, it really does.  But this is the classic play of mens-rights-ists whenever a woman wants to talk about issues facing women it's "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE POOR POOR MEN!!???"

Sorry Doc, you can't distract us that easily.



DocMoriartty said:


> M*y own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying.* Because I automatically side with the attacker? No, not at all, because it is 1000% a much less horrible thing to find out someone was a liar as opposed to find out someone truly was sexually assaulted.



As noble sounding as the second couple of lines are, they are garbage and lies.  

Because this: 


DocMoriartty said:


> M*y own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying.*



leads directly to this:


DocMoriartty said:


> No you do NOT automatically believe the victim. Does the Duke Lacrosse Team ring a bell? When someone makes an accusation you can sympathize, you can offer to help them. You do NOT automatically that them at their work with no evidence and effectively destroy another persons like which is what a rape accusation will do.
> 
> 
> And to follow up on your point it is basic human decency to never destroy a persons life based purely on the word of another person.




You HOPE the victim is lying because you want to stand on your soapbox and preach about the dangers of "false rape".  And THAT is disgusting.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

shidaku said:


> Ah yes here we go: the victim in your eyes is Bill Webb, it's _his_ career on the line, it's _his_ life on the line, it's _his_ destruction you're concerned about.
> 
> You're not disbelieving the victim because you lack evidence, that's complete BS, especially since there is _plenty_ of evidence, far more than a good deal of sexual-crimes ever have, you're disbelieving because you don't believe BJ Hensley is actually the victim.  You see Webb as the "potential victim" of her "rape accusation" and that is where you place your concern.
> 
> Noone is asking you to white-knight Hensley and destroy Webb's life.  All they're asking you to do is _believe_ her.  That's IT.  Nothing else.  You don't have to write an angry forum post at Webb.  You don't have to make an angry phone call to Paizo.  You don't have to do _anything at all_ other than believe that Hensley is telling the truth.
> 
> But you don't care, because you don't think Hensley actually _is_ the victim here.  You think Webb is the _potential_ victim and that's who you care about.  A _man_ being falsely accused of rape, that's your soap box.  That's your concern: "false rape".  All because in the tens of thousands of sexual crimes that happen in the USA, one or two of them turn out to be false.  Yeah, that sucks, it really does.  But this is the classic play of mens-rights-ists whenever a woman wants to talk about issues facing women it's "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE POOR POOR MEN!!???"
> 
> Sorry Doc, you can't distract us that easily.




I dont know Bill, have never met him, never will meet him, do not care to meet him.

I was very clearly responding to the GENERAL STATEMENT that ALL victims must automatically be believed as soon as they say something with is completely and utterly wrong.

If you and other posters was to fail at basic reading comprehension and assume I was speaking on this specific incident that is your problem and says far more about your agenda here than anything else.


----------



## Morrus

I want to make it clear that if you’re looking for a place to tell everybody about how you don’t believe the victim here, you are in the wrong place. I am not going to condone or facilitate victim blaming on this website, or tolerate its presence.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

shidaku said:


> Ah yes here we go: the victim in your eyes is Bill Webb, it's _his_ career on the line, it's _his_ life on the line, it's _his_ destruction you're concerned about.
> 
> You're not disbelieving the victim because you lack evidence, that's complete BS, especially since there is _plenty_ of evidence, far more than a good deal of sexual-crimes ever have, you're disbelieving because you don't believe BJ Hensley is actually the victim.  You see Webb as the "potential victim" of her "rape accusation" and that is where you place your concern.
> 
> Noone is asking you to white-knight Hensley and destroy Webb's life.  All they're asking you to do is _believe_ her.  That's IT.  Nothing else.  You don't have to write an angry forum post at Webb.  You don't have to make an angry phone call to Paizo.  You don't have to do _anything at all_ other than believe that Hensley is telling the truth.
> 
> But you don't care, because you don't think Hensley actually _is_ the victim here.  You think Webb is the _potential_ victim and that's who you care about.  A _man_ being falsely accused of rape, that's your soap box.  That's your concern: "false rape".  All because in the tens of thousands of sexual crimes that happen in the USA, one or two of them turn out to be false.  Yeah, that sucks, it really does.  But this is the classic play of mens-rights-ists whenever a woman wants to talk about issues facing women it's "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE POOR POOR MEN!!???"
> 
> Sorry Doc, you can't distract us that easily.
> 
> 
> As noble sounding as the second couple of lines are, they are garbage and lies.
> 
> Because this:
> leads directly to this:
> 
> You HOPE the victim is lying because you want to stand on your soapbox and preach about the dangers of "false rape".  And THAT is disgusting.




The only person here that is disgusting. 

But I will do my best to use small words and simple example.

You have a choice. You can be a LIAR or you can be a RAPE VICTIM.

Which one do you chose?

Pretty simple choice isnt it.

THAT IS THE ONLY BASIS OF MY STATEMENT. Stop being stupid and assuming more. I would rather know someone has to get over the shame and embarrassment of having lied than have them having to potentially go through years of therapy and inability to have normal relationships because they were the victim of a rape.

I am out of this conversation. There are too many agendas here that have nothing to do with intelligence of decency and I want no part of it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Morrus said:


> I want to make it clear that if you’re looking for a place to tell everybody about how you don’t believe the victim here, you are in the wrong place. I am not going to condone or facilitate victim blaming on this website, or tolerate its presence.




Never said it, never had any reason to say it.

All I ever said is you should never automatically believe the words of one person and based on those words alone condemn another person. This has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with another poster who implied that anyone who make any accusation should automatically be believed which means you are condemning another person based on nothing but one persons words.


----------



## fantasmamore

DocMoriartty said:


> My own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying.




If someone tells me that his loved one got murdered, I believe him. Someone that has been robbed? The same. Strangely I believe what I hear and I sympathize with the person telling me his story. I don't ask "did your loved one said something to his killer before the shooting?". But that's one thing. The crime happened. Who is the murderer? I don't know and I am still going to doubt until the trial ends.


----------



## evilref

DocMoriartty said:


> If you and other posters was to fail at basic reading comprehension and assume I was speaking on this specific incident that is your problem and says far more about your agenda here than anything else.




No, I understood that point

So, let me understand, if you phone the police and report an intruder, you want them to say 'but really, can we believe that, should we you know, wait for more evidence?' or do you want them to come out and investigate your intruder?

If you go to the police and say you've been mugged, do you want them to believe you when you turn up with a broken nose and blood streaming down your face, or should they say 'maybe they just did that themselves to blame someone'.

Because what you're advocating is that some crimes get believed, and others don't, and amazingly the crimes that don't get believed are the ones that primarily (but not exclusively) happen to women.

And yes, men who are harassed face the same problems, and the same issues, and there's a whole other subject about how they have even less priority, and as an abuse survivor I know the struggle of 'do you say anything, can you say anything, what do you say, how will you tell other people about it, what will they say, will i be believed, what will my friends/family think'.

And to use your logic, they'd all have thought I was lying, because apparently no one should believe any victim - you know, if it's a sexual abuse victim, but not someone who got served undercooked scallops, or got mugged, or anything else, just that, because...err...why is that exactly?


----------



## Morrus

DocMoriartty said:


> Never said it, never had any reason to say it.
> 
> All I ever said is you should never automatically believe the words of one person and based on those words alone condemn another person. This has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with another poster who implied that anyone who make any accusation should automatically be believed which means you are condemning another person based on nothing but one persons words.




You know better than to argue in-thread with a moderator. Don’t post in this thread again, please.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

fantasmamore said:


> If someone tells me that his loved one got murdered, I believe him. Someone that has been robbed? The same. Strangely I believe what I hear and I sympathize with the person telling me his story. I don't ask "did your loved one said something to his killer before the shooting?". But that's one thing. The crime happened. Who is the murderer? I don't know and I am still going to doubt until the trial ends.




Exacltly, you are comparing to very black and white crimes to a very grey crime. Would you automatically go out and beat the hell out of Ed because Joe said he stole $50 from him? No you would not. But when it come to rape most people go well beyond sympathy and turn their sympathy into rather major attacks on the person being accused and as the Duke case proved that is very dangerous.


----------



## Sunseeker

DocMoriartty said:


> Exacltly, you are comparing to very black and white crimes to a very grey crime. Would you automatically go out and beat the hell out of Ed because Joe said he stole $50 from him? No you would not. But when it come to rape most people go well beyond sympathy and turn their sympathy into rather major attacks on the person being accused and as the Duke case proved that is very dangerous.




AGAIN: noone is asking you to do _anything_ more than *believe* the victim.  Not attack someone.  Not do anything at all.  Just believe them.


----------



## kenmarable

shidaku said:


> AGAIN: noone is asking you to do _anything_ more than *believe* the victim.  Not attack someone.  Not do anything at all.  Just believe them.




They have already argued with moderation, called people stupid, said they were leaving the thread but posted more, been thread banned, and then posted again. So I’d recommend dropping this and moving along. They aren’t interested in listening to anyone, even Morrus.


----------



## Sunseeker

kenmarable said:


> They have already argued with moderation, been thread banned, and then posted again, so I’d recommend dropping this and moving along. They aren’t interested in listening to anyone, even Morrus.




Yeah, I know, and I don't have anything more to add to them anyway.


----------



## Caliban

DocMoriartty said:


> My own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying.




And that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how biased you are.  Probably the only true thing you've posted.


----------



## aramis erak

I think the whole of western civilization is already gone way too far into hypersensitivity, and people need to accept that most other people do not care about their feelings except as those feelings directly impact the person acting/speaking. 

Basic anthropological theory - the monkeysphere. People really only are concerned about around 100-150 individuals at most. Those are the ones they deal with the most.

I don't think verbal sexual advances are, themselves, the problem; if they are, humanity is doomed. (If you can't ask for sex, you can't get consent, and if you can't get consent, all sex is then relegated to rape.)

That they persisted after a "No" or "Not Interested" is. Until that point, the person propositioned is not a victim, save perhaps of their own internal issues. It's only after the No that they can be the victim of verbal harassment. 

Now, that the guy pursued physically, that's a whole 'nother issue - one that should be settled in court, not on the internet. And if convicted, the perp should get time in a cage. But discussions on the board amount to grounds for a slander suit if it's not proven in court.

Just to give example of the point in the first post:
I am making an attempt to sway opinion, not because I really care what you think, but because too many people hold an opinion that interferes with my life, and I want less of said interference, and less of the nuisance of people making mountains out of molehills on boards where I want to see discussions of games, not "Modern Rape Culture"... My adherence to board rules isn't because I care what Morrus thinks, but because the board has value to me for the games discussion and not following the rules results in not being allowed into the discussions. I'm not a sociopath; there are many people whose opinions matter to me; not a one of them is active on this board as far as I know. I don't really care if I offend others sensibilities; I'm not here to make friends, but to engage in discussions that I gain some value of - some mere entertainment, others access to resources, others still challenging my perceptions of certain games, and making me reevaluate them.


----------



## kenmarable

aramis erak said:


> I think the whole of western civilization is already gone way too far into hypersensitivity, and people need to accept that most other people do not care about their feelings except as those feelings directly impact the person acting/speaking.
> 
> Basic anthropological theory - the monkeysphere. People really only are concerned about around 100-150 individuals at most. Those are the ones they deal with the most.
> 
> I don't think verbal sexual advances are, themselves, the problem; if they are, humanity is doomed. (If you can't ask for sex, you can't get consent, and if you can't get consent, all sex is then relegated to rape.)
> 
> That they persisted after a "No" or "Not Interested" is. Until that point, the person propositioned is not a victim, save perhaps of their own internal issues. It's only after the No that they can be the victim of verbal harassment.
> 
> Now, that the guy pursued physically, that's a whole 'nother issue - one that should be settled in court, not on the internet. And if convicted, the perp should get time in a cage. But discussions on the board amount to grounds for a slander suit if it's not proven in court.
> 
> Just to give example of the point in the first post:
> I am making an attempt to sway opinion, not because I really care what you think, but because too many people hold an opinion that interferes with my life, and I want less of said interference, and less of the nuisance of people making mountains out of molehills on boards where I want to see discussions of games, not "Modern Rape Culture"... My adherence to board rules isn't because I care what Morrus thinks, but because the board has value to me for the games discussion and not following the rules results in not being allowed into the discussions. I'm not a sociopath; there are many people whose opinions matter to me; not a one of them is active on this board as far as I know. I don't really care if I offend others sensibilities; I'm not here to make friends, but to engage in discussions that I gain some value of - some mere entertainment, others access to resources, others still challenging my perceptions of certain games, and making me reevaluate them.




Citations needed. 

From my education in evolutionary psychology, ethics, and even personal life experiences, I’m pretty sure the majority of your premises are factually wrong and you provide no evidence to the contrary. With faulty premises, the whole argument falls apart. 

So I guess I will gladly continuing trying to prevent sexual harassment even if that work inconveniences you. (Or if you want discussions about gaming and not sexual harassment, don’t read threads that literally have the word “harassment” in the title. Shouldn’t be too much of an inconvenience.)


----------



## evilref

aramis erak said:


> I think the whole of western civilization is already gone way too far into hypersensitivity, and people need to accept that most other people do not care about their feelings except as those feelings directly impact the person acting/speaking.
> 
> Basic anthropological theory - the monkeysphere. People really only are concerned about around 100-150 individuals at most. Those are the ones they deal with the most.
> 
> I don't think verbal sexual advances are, themselves, the problem; if they are, humanity is doomed. (If you can't ask for sex, you can't get consent, and if you can't get consent, all sex is then relegated to rape.)
> 
> That they persisted after a "No" or "Not Interested" is. Until that point, the person propositioned is not a victim, save perhaps of their own internal issues. It's only after the No that they can be the victim of verbal harassment.
> 
> Now, that the guy pursued physically, that's a whole 'nother issue - one that should be settled in court, not on the internet. And if convicted, the perp should get time in a cage. But discussions on the board amount to grounds for a slander suit if it's not proven in court.
> 
> Just to give example of the point in the first post:
> I am making an attempt to sway opinion, not because I really care what you think, but because too many people hold an opinion that interferes with my life, and I want less of said interference, and less of the nuisance of people making mountains out of molehills on boards where I want to see discussions of games, not "Modern Rape Culture"... My adherence to board rules isn't because I care what Morrus thinks, but because the board has value to me for the games discussion and not following the rules results in not being allowed into the discussions. I'm not a sociopath; there are many people whose opinions matter to me; not a one of them is active on this board as far as I know. I don't really care if I offend others sensibilities; I'm not here to make friends, but to engage in discussions that I gain some value of - some mere entertainment, others access to resources, others still challenging my perceptions of certain games, and making me reevaluate them.




This is a massive collection of MRA rubbish.

It directly ignores actual real changes in sexual assault as a result of teaching about consent, and abuse and rape:

https://www.ndtv.com/education/how-...ya-reduced-cases-of-sexual-harassment-1767943

This post is trying to define that it's perfectly okay for men to say whatever they want to women, and only after they say 'no thanks' do they become victims. Cat calling when walking down the street, is harassment. Using a linked in business connection to sexually proposition or send unsolicited sexually provocative messages, is harassment. What Mentzer sent to Jessica Price, is harassment.

Quite apart from all the MRA rubbish it espouses, it's ignoring that Bill Webb sexually harassed and pursued BJ Hensley at PaizoCon, once again there's no concern for the victim. Ohh, wait, there is, only to then claim that it's only harassment if it goes to court, and otherwise it's slander. I guess Webb's excuse for a back-routed apology for harassing her doesn't count - that's admitting it by the way. To the best of anyone's knowledge, because Paizo have refused to comment and haven't denied the witnesses' statements to the contrary, he's not been banned from  attenting, and nor have Frog God Games sanctioned him in any way.



> because too many people hold an opinion that interferes with my life



Would that be the opinion that you shouldn't be sexually harassing people?


----------



## redrick

aramis erak said:


> I think the whole of western civilization is already gone way too far into hypersensitivity, and people need to accept that most other people do not care about their feelings except as those feelings directly impact the person acting/speaking.
> 
> Basic anthropological theory - the monkeysphere. People really only are concerned about around 100-150 individuals at most. Those are the ones they deal with the most.
> 
> I don't think verbal sexual advances are, themselves, the problem; if they are, humanity is doomed. (If you can't ask for sex, you can't get consent, and if you can't get consent, all sex is then relegated to rape.)
> 
> That they persisted after a "No" or "Not Interested" is. Until that point, the person propositioned is not a victim, save perhaps of their own internal issues. It's only after the No that they can be the victim of verbal harassment.
> 
> Now, that the guy pursued physically, that's a whole 'nother issue - one that should be settled in court, not on the internet. And if convicted, the perp should get time in a cage. But discussions on the board amount to grounds for a slander suit if it's not proven in court.
> 
> Just to give example of the point in the first post:
> I am making an attempt to sway opinion, not because I really care what you think, but because too many people hold an opinion that interferes with my life, and I want less of said interference, and less of the nuisance of people making mountains out of molehills on boards where I want to see discussions of games, not "Modern Rape Culture"... My adherence to board rules isn't because I care what Morrus thinks, but because the board has value to me for the games discussion and not following the rules results in not being allowed into the discussions. I'm not a sociopath; there are many people whose opinions matter to me; not a one of them is active on this board as far as I know. I don't really care if I offend others sensibilities; I'm not here to make friends, but to engage in discussions that I gain some value of - some mere entertainment, others access to resources, others still challenging my perceptions of certain games, and making me reevaluate them.




Man, for real?

This thread is about a case of sexual harassment where all parties are, more or less, in agreement about the facts. Even the perpetrator has not contested them. Everybody involved seems to be in agreement that the proceedings were sexual harassment.

And we got people dropping in here talking about Duke Lacrosse and some sort of "Monkeysphere" and other people talking about "burning people at the stake."

None of that is relevant. This ain't Duke Lacrosse. These facts have been corroborated by all sorts of witness statement. This ain't some sort of "monkeysphere", because the future of the species does not depend on business owners drunkenly harassing their colleagues. Humans seem to be doing a damn good job at procreating, and we don't seem to have a hard time negotiating consent. Like, seriously, how is that relevant?

You think we are oversensitive to sexual harassment? Every American woman I've ever spoken to about the subject would disagree with you, and, while, as a man, I don't experience much of it personally, putting myself in the shoes of every woman I've ever worked with or spoken with on the subject does not feel pleasant. I have seen sexual harassment in almost every job I've worked in. I've seen supervisors refer to their employees as "Boobs Magee." I've had coworkers tell me of guest speakers who groped them in private, and were simply reassigned to avoid the speaker. (Instead of, you know, sending the  packing without his honorarium.) I've heard stories from friends who talked, as adolescent girls, of walking past businessmen who called out to them, "Show me your p----!" This stuff has been around for as long as I've been alive. We are hearing about it so much now because of the hard work of feminists to bring it out into the light and force society as a whole to take it seriously. And it is my hope that, by talking about it, by criticizing and sanctioning the bad actors, by taking the stigma off of the victims and onto the perpetrators, in this one small area, we can make things better.

I hope Frog God Games takes some action to demonstrate how seriously they take sexual harassment, as their statement declared. Bill Webb probably shouldn't be representing his company at cons — he doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. I hope that Webb issues a sincere apology and does some soul searching about what he needs to change in his life, and I hope that the victim can stop getting dragged as part of some abstract theorizing about gray areas.

----EDITED TO ADD-----
I'm just a stranger on the internet and I don't know BJ Hensley and I don't want to use her experience as a battleground against sexism, rape culture and mra nonsense. I was a customer of Bill Webb's up until very recently, and as was suggested upthread, I'll be contacting them to let them know why I won't be purchasing any of their products anymore, or using the products of theirs I have at my table anymore.


----------



## evilref

aramis erak said:


> Basic anthropological theory - the monkeysphere. People really only are concerned about around 100-150 individuals at most. Those are the ones they deal with the most.




I wasn't going to quote this, but it has so little to do with the subject that it really needs to be calld out as being nonsensical.



aramis erak said:


> I don't think verbal sexual advances are, themselves, the problem; if they are, humanity is doomed. (If you can't ask for sex, you can't get consent, and if you can't get consent, all sex is then relegated to rape.)




So, let's just parse this out

Barbara, if you want a payrise, you should really be wearing lower-cut tops - not harassment according to this

Bob, if you want that day off, then you need to be putting out more, come into my office and take care of me - not harassment according to this

See someone you like in your workplace, send them a random provocative photo labelled 'what I want to do to you' - not harassment according to this

Someone walking down the street, cat call obscene provocative things - not harassment according to this

Walk up to random person and just casually tell them what sexually provocative thing you're going to do to them - not harassment according to this

etc. etc. etc.

What?


----------



## pemerton

DocMoriartty said:


> you should never automatically believe the words of one person and based on those words alone condemn another person.



I don't know what the word "automatically" means here. But sometimes people say true things, and should be believed.



DocMoriartty said:


> you are comparing to very black and white crimes to a very grey crime.



The conduct this thread is about isn't "grey". Nor is it disputed, except by a few posters who seem not to believe that it took place, because . . . ?



DocMoriartty said:


> You have a choice. You can be a LIAR or you can be a RAPE VICTIM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would rather know someone has to get over the shame and embarrassment of having lied than have them having to potentially go through years of therapy and inability to have normal relationships because they were the victim of a rape.



This has to be the most disingenous nonsense I've ever read on this site.

When someone says she's been harassed, I offer sympathy. But you expect me to believe that you say "I hope you're lying, because that would be easier for you to cope with".


----------



## Hussar

I think I might be repeating myself here, but, why is this even a discussion?

Douchebag acts like a douchebag in front of multiple witnesses and gets into an altercation over it.  No one is contradicting that.  Everyone agrees that douchebag was being a douchebag.  

This is about as open and shut as it gets.  This isn't "he said/she said".  It's not in question AT ALL.

Bringing up broader issues like the Duke Lacrosse Team or other issues is so far besides the point as to be in a different Zip code.  Yes, it is possible for someone to fabricate false accusations.  That's 100% true.  But, also 100% beside the point here.  

Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DocMoriartty said:


> Just because what?
> 
> How about innocent until proven guilty? Is that a good enough reason. In this specific situation enough information is out there to make a pretty intelligent decision but that is not every situation.
> 
> If Person A says he/she was assaulted the automatic respond should NEVER be to instantly believe that person and start calling Person B a rapist.
> 
> My own PERSONAL opinion is that any time I hear about a sexual assault my "hope" is that the victim is lying. Because I automatically side with the attacker? No, not at all, because it is 1000% a much less horrible thing to find out someone was a liar as opposed to find out someone truly was sexually assaulted.




While I personally hope all allegations of criminal activity are false, the reality is that the average rate of false reporting is between 2-8% for sexual assaults (depending on how the crime are defined by the group analyzing the data) and @2% for all crimes in general.

So while the maxim AND the law are "innocent until proven guilty" experience shows us that usually, when someone is brave enough to come forward and report a crime, they're being honest.


----------



## Caliban

aramis erak said:


> I'M EDGY!  I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE THINKS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT!!!  ALSO, MY OPINION IS IMPORTANT!!!




For someone who doesn't care what we think, you sure spent a lot of text making sure we know that.  

But, just so I'm clear on this bit - you don't care about anyone's opinion, but you expect us to care about yours.    

The message board and the people who post on it don't matter - you are just using it for your own entertainment purposes, without any consideration for anyone's feelings but your own.  

You claim you aren't a sociopath, but admit the only thing keeping you from behaving worse is the law the forum rules.   

With such sterling qualities, it is truly a mystery that you choose to empathize with the aggressor rather than the target of harassment.


----------



## Guang

evilref said:


> So, no 'innocent until proven guilty' has nothing to do with it, because this isn't a court.




It is a court, though, or has become one. We have judges, the prosecution, the defense, sentencing, and punishment. We even have reporters, and people appealing to this court from the lower civil courts. The court of public opinion.


----------



## Caliban

Guang said:


> It is a court, though, or has become one. We have judges, the prosecution, the defense, sentencing, and punishment. We even have reporters, and people appealing to this court from the lower civil courts. The court of public opinion.




No, it really isn't.  The matter has already been dealt with by the concerned parties.  Just because a few people here think more should be done, and others think less should have been done, doesn't actually change what has been done.  

We may affect future actions by the company that employed the aggressor (or how other companies handle such incidents), since public perception matters, but nothing we say here will change what has already happened.


----------



## Libramarian

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As someone who worked (briefly) in the American criminal justice system, I can say that there's a distinct difference in the way victims of sex crimes are treated vs other crimes.  There's a certain reservoir of people whose default reaction is to blame the victim that just isn't present with other crimes.
> 
> This isn't the same as our maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty."  This is "even if it happened, it's not really the perp's fault."




Well I think that reflects the asymmetry in how sex crimes are defined and prosecuted vs other violent crimes. Assault (in most jurisdictions) requires an intent to physically hurt someone; sexual assault does not. The severity of a sex crime seems to be graded according to how close it came to sexual consummation, not how much it actually hurt the victim.

I think it makes sense that people find a sexually motivated _mens rea_ to be somewhat more sympathetic and relatable than the _mens rea_ of someone who wanted to physically hurt another. At least for those who don't think there is anything inherently evil or sinful about sexual desire.

What's very unlikely is that there is a misogynistic bias to believe the man over the woman in a dispute. A large body of evidence exists showing that in fact we are biased to consider women more trustworthy than men (among many other positive attributes).



evilref said:


> Well, no, because it's not a court of law.




I think we should aspire to be more like a court of law when judging the actions of others.

If we all just want to have a good old-fashioned moral panic in an echo  chamber, we can do that in a thread about harassment in gaming in  general, not in one about a specific incident with specific  accusations.


----------



## Caliban

Libramarian said:


> Well I think that reflects the asymmetry in how sex crimes are defined and prosecuted vs other violent crimes. Assault (in most jurisdictions) requires an intent to physically hurt someone; sexual assault does not. *The severity of a sex crime seems to be graded according to how close it came to sexual consummation, not how much it actually hurt the victim.*




So, you think raping someone would be OK if you don't "actually" hurt them?  Simply amazing. 

Dude, give it up.  You've already shown your hand. 

 In a matter where none of the major facts are in question, you are still trying to cloud the issue and create doubt where none exists by bringing in other incidents that are less clear cut.


----------



## Libramarian

Hussar said:


> I think I might be repeating myself here, but, why is this even a discussion?
> 
> Douchebag acts like a douchebag in front of multiple witnesses and *gets into an altercation over it*.  No one is contradicting that.  Everyone agrees that douchebag was being a douchebag.




No, again there is a disagreement about what sort of harassment occurred, and especially about whether there was actually an altercation that injured a Paizo staff member.

Brookes on Twitter says there was. Frog God Games conducts an internal investigation that includes a conversation with Hensley and says there was not. I think this is important. 

This is a possible scenario that comports with Hensley's account but not Brookes':
Bill Webb, while inebriated, made a flirtatious remark to Hensley. She rebuffed him and left. He followed her to apologize but was stopped by Paizo staff who asked him to leave her alone. He did. Hensley filed a harassment complaint. ​
If this is what happened, I'd appreciate it if he made a personal statement apologizing for his behavior, and ideally making a commitment to avoid alcohol at cons in the future, but I wouldn't think he should suffer life-changing professional repercussions.

This is a different possible scenario that seems more in line with Brookes' description:
Bill Webb, while inebriated, made a flirtatious remark to Hensley. She asked him to stop but he continued to harass her. She called for help as Webb became more agitated and violent. A Paizo staff member attempted to step between Webb and Hensley. Webb twisted his arm until he heard the bones snap and bodyslammed him through a table. He then spent the rest of the night searching for Hensley through the hotel like Jack Torrance in _The Shining_. Hensley filed a harassment complaint.​
If that's what happened, I totally would support a boycott of FGG products until he's ousted from the company.


----------



## Libramarian

Caliban said:


> So, you think raping someone would be OK if you don't "actually" hurt them?



No.


----------



## Libramarian

Morrus said:


> You’re just making things up.




Follow along Morrus: in Frog God Games' full statement regarding the incident (not the truncated version appearing in the article here), Matt Finch originally included a screenshot of a conversation an FGG partner had with the harassment victim BJ Hensley. Hensley asked that this image be removed. I expressed concern that she wanted her words removed because they contradict the much more widely publicized version of events on Twitter.

An individual reading the thread who wishes to remain anonymous just sent me a copy of this image.

I can't repost it here, but I will say that the tone on both sides was easygoing and conciliatory and in fact it's remarked that others are "misrepresenting it all to support their desires and issues". I can confirm that it supports FGG's statement in every way that it disputes the version of events on Twitter.


----------



## kenmarable

Libramarian said:


> No, again there is a disagreement about what sort of harassment occurred, and especially about whether there was actually an altercation that injured a Paizo staff member.
> 
> Brookes on Twitter says there was. Frog God Games conducts an internal investigation that includes a conversation with Hensley and says there was not. I think this is important.
> 
> This is a possible scenario that comports with Hensley's account but not Brookes':
> Bill Webb, while inebriated, made a flirtatious remark to Hensley. She rebuffed him and left. He followed her to apologize but was stopped by Paizo staff who asked him to leave her alone. He did. Hensley filed a harassment complaint. ​
> If this is what happened, I'd appreciate it if he made a personal statement apologizing for his behavior, and ideally making a commitment to avoid alcohol at cons in the future, but I wouldn't think he should suffer life-changing professional repercussions.
> 
> This is a different possible scenario that seems more in line with Brookes' description:
> Bill Webb, while inebriated, made a flirtatious remark to Hensley. She asked him to stop but he continued to harass her. She called for help as Webb became more agitated and violent. A Paizo staff member attempted to step between Webb and Hensley. Webb twisted his arm until he heard the bones snap and bodyslammed him through a table. He then spent the rest of the night searching for Hensley through the hotel like Jack Torrance in _The Shining_. Hensley filed a harassment complaint.​
> If that's what happened, I totally would support a boycott of FGG products until he's ousted from the company.




What on earth are you even talking about?


----------



## kenmarable

Libramarian said:


> Follow along Morrus: in Frog God Games' full statement regarding the incident (not the truncated version appearing in the article here), Matt Finch originally included a screenshot of a conversation an FGG partner had with the harassment victim BJ Hensley. Hensley asked that this image be removed. I expressed concern that she wanted her words removed because they contradict the much more widely publicized version of events on Twitter.
> 
> An individual reading the thread who wishes to remain anonymous just sent me a copy of this image.
> 
> I can't repost it here, but I will say that the tone on both sides was easygoing and conciliatory and in fact it's remarked that others are "misrepresenting it all to support their desires and issues". I can confirm that it supports FGG's statement in every way that it disputes the version of events on Twitter.




If you are referring to the screenshot that Matt Finch posted without permission to RPG.net and other places, no it absolutely does not say what you claim it is saying. Why are you trying so very hard to deny something that there is no disagreement about among those who were actually there?


----------



## Caliban

Libramarian said:


> No.




I dunno, that sounds kind of vague.  How can we be sure you aren't being pressured into saying that?


----------



## fantasmamore

DocMoriartty said:


> Would you automatically go out and beat the hell out of Ed because Joe said he stole $50 from him?



No, I would not. I would believe Joe but I wouldn't judge Ed, mainly because I do not know all the facts and I am not properly trained to judge anyone in any case. But I would believe that Joe is a victim of theft, yes. 



DocMoriartty said:


> But when it comes to rape most people go well beyond sympathy and turn their sympathy into rather major attacks on the person being accused and as the Duke case proved that is very dangerous.



Well, rape is not the same as robbery. And yes, I get it, most people would get pitchforks and torches and march to the alleged "rapist" house. A rumor can destroy innocent people lives. Would you leave your child alone with someone accused of child abuse even if the court rules that it was a false accusation and the guy is innocent? I wouldn't. But would you ask what the child was wearing or would you dismiss the child's testimony as false because "children lie all the time"? That's the thing. But let's focus on our case for a moment. There are different sources that match the same conclusion; Webb did something wrong that night while being drunk and with his family somewhere close. The woman is the victim here. Her feelings is all that matters. Hers and mr Webb's family members that could read these lines now knowing that it's about their father / husband / brother / son... They are his victims too.


----------



## Hussar

Libramarian said:
			
		

> What's very unlikely is that there is a misogynistic bias to believe the man over the woman in a dispute. A large body of evidence exists showing that in fact we are biased to consider women more trustworthy than men (among many other positive attributes).




Are you serious?  Naw, you're too well read in the area to be serious here.  You are obviously making some sort of joke that's just a bit too subtle for me to catch.  You can't seriously be suggesting that there is a bias towards believing women in harassment/sexual assault cases.  

Good grief.


----------



## Azgulor

While this thread has certainly devolved into baseless speculation and talking past others, if anyone is interested, BJ Hensley posted a comment on her Facebook page on 10/26.  In her post, she talks about "many good men" in the industry.  She cites that the list is not a complete list but ones that jumped out at me include:
Erik Mona, Owen KC Stevens
Greg Vaughan, Matt Finch, Skeeter Green
Robert Brookes

I realize for conspiracy theorists and flamethrowing-boycott wielders alike that list may be inconvenient, since the list includes the guy who highlighted the issue, staff at Paizo, and staff at Frog God Games.

Take what you will from that.  

What I take away from it is that she is a person of courage, grace, and kindness and she has my respect.  She and her family are in my prayers.


----------



## mudbunny

Wow, the stench of MRA in this thread is impressive.


----------



## Morrus

mudbunny said:


> Wow, the stench of MRA in this thread is impressive.




I'm grateful that the majority of participants are clearly and emphatically explaining why they are wrong. While it would be better that people would already know themselves why things like victim blaming, siding with harassers, and so on, make for a hostile environment for women, it's fortunate that those who don't are visibly challenged. That helps to send the message that we (being the majority, fortunately) do not accept, condone, or agree with such viewpoints.

So I would like to thank those in this thread who have reinforced the position that we - as the in the gaming community - fully stand behind inclusiveness, and fully stand against harassment. It's a damn shame that we need to, but it's important that we do it.


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> Follow along Morrus: in Frog God Games' full statement regarding the incident (not the truncated version appearing in the article here), Matt Finch originally included a screenshot of a conversation an FGG partner had with the harassment victim BJ Hensley. Hensley asked that this image be removed. I expressed concern that she wanted her words removed because they contradict the much more widely publicized version of events on Twitter.
> 
> An individual reading the thread who wishes to remain anonymous just sent me a copy of this image.
> 
> I can't repost it here, but I will say that the tone on both sides was easygoing and conciliatory and in fact it's remarked that others are "misrepresenting it all to support their desires and issues". I can confirm that it supports FGG's statement in every way that it disputes the version of events on Twitter.




I think you need to stop posting  in this thread. This victim blaming is utterly unacceptable. And we're not interested in what conveniently anonymous people are showing you images of that you can't post here. In case I haven't been absolutely, abundantly, and repeatedly clear: this community is no place for crap like this.


----------



## Atlictoatl

Here's a core problem with the "innocent until proven guilty" and "ruin an innocent life" defensive arguments: they don't spend as much time thinking about other crimes as they do sexual crime.

_Any_ purported criminal activity within a community results in a social community response. If someone in a community gains a reputation as a thief, mugger, con artist, drug addict, serial abuser, extortionist, embezzler, etc., that person will receive different treatment in that community as a result. This happens regardless of what happens in a court of law and any legal punishment, and is wholly separate from the process of determining guilt for the purpose of legal action. 

This has always been a benefit and drawback of community. People who gain a reputation as _anything_ negative will suffer under the stigma of that reputation. This has the positive effect of providing protection for the community against bad actors who may escape the legal system. It has the negative effect of making it more difficult for bad actors to reform, and for occasionally catching people who aren't bad actors in the social net. The only recourses for people suffering under a bad reputation are to a) suffer under it, b) demonstrate as best they are able over time a reformation in that reputation, or c) relocating to a different community.

Sexual violence is a weird offense in our society, because it generally isn't prosecuted well and even when it is perpetrators are not generally kept in prison for life (as they usually are with major crimes like murder). Yet it's viewed as heinous enough that we've instituted things like the sex offender registry, which makes it very hard (appropriately) for sex offenders to reduce their societal stigma by relocation to a new community. We don't have that same condition for thieves, etc. 

It's also a challenging offense because sexual assault can be a major crime, but it's one that both leaves the victim alive and is very personal, meaning they can generally name their abuser. That most likely isn't case with other major crimes, where the victim is either killed or the crime is very impersonal. Those crimes require professional investigation, and as a society we're invested in trusting that our detectives generally get it right. The policing is done behind a veil of authority that we mostly trust (because to not do so is chaotic, socially). There is no such veil of authority with sexual crimes wherein a victim accuses a perpetrator; it becomes a contest between two people, and generally the perpetrator has greater social status than the victim, which introduces all manner of bias in the process.

Using the argument of "innocent until proven guilty" is making the claim that the social mechanism should not exist separate from the legal mechanism, which completely ignores the entirety of human communal behavior. It's a nonsensical argument. 

The argument of "ruining a human life" is unaware that it is reinforcing social status bias, by placing the decayed social status of the perpetrator above the trauma to the victim. This is especially sour, because it's the greatest vulnerability of redress for sexual assault: victims do not come forward because they rightfully believe they cannot overcome the social status of their perpetrator, and prosecution is weak because superior social status is very difficult to penetrate. As a result, we as a society need to carefully monitor ourselves to ensure we're not participating in that bias, and arguments that appeal to that bias will either sound well-reasoned or completely tone-deaf, depending on the degree to which individuals realize that a bias exists.

What the people who appeal to the "but what about those falsely accused of sexual crime?" emotional appeal are failing to see is that they are, at the core, making a social status argument. _Every_ category of crime sees some amount of false conviction. Most crimes, however, are perceived as being committed by lower status individuals against higher status individuals, so false prosecution is perceived societally as worth the benefit. Whenever we see a higher status perpetrator, we hear some noises of concern about how the accusation of criminal behavior will affect the high status person. Because so much sexual crime is perpetrated by higher status individuals, we hear these noises in disproportionate amounts.

Someday, hopefully, more corners of our society will understand that those of lower social status require enhanced protection against those of higher social status, as a moral imperative in a functional society. Ideally, gender would cease to be any measure of social status at all. We've still got a long road to climb there, though.


----------



## Eltab

The ancient Biblical admonition is to take things on the testimony of two or three witnesses before rendering judgement on a matter.

In the incident at hand, we had MANY witnesses and multiple participants testifying.  This isn't 'he-said/she-said' or a charge made up out of nothing.  Even late-to-the-party commenters (such as almost everybody on this thread) can review the testimony and say "I understand what happened."


----------



## Atlictoatl

Eltab said:


> The ancient Biblical admonition is to take things on the testimony of two or three witnesses before rendering judgement on a matter.
> 
> In the incident at hand, we had MANY witnesses and multiple participants testifying.  This isn't 'he-said/she-said' or a charge made up out of nothing.  Even late-to-the-party commenters (such as almost everybody on this thread) can review the testimony and say "I understand what happened."



Even in an absence of additional witnesses beyond the victim of sexual assault, we as a society should be moving more fully towards believing the victim. While we can police against false accusation, the incidence of actual sexual violence is orders of magnitude greater than the incidence of false accusation (and, in fact, the "what about false accusation" movement is hyperbolized for political reasons).

One of the difficulties here is that the change in state for the victim is often more ephemeral than in cases other than sexual violence. If someone is physically assaulted, or an object is stolen or damaged, the evidence is physical. Some forms of sexual violence primarily confer emotional or mental damage, and we lack some ability in measuring that change in state.

Why we have to fight to move towards societal acceptance of claims of sexual violence is because sexual violence is generally committed by those of higher social status against those of lower social status, and the victims in such cases will not have forms of redress if society doesn't work hard to protect them.

High social status individuals perpetrating sexual violence on those of lower status is as old as time, but we're now living in a society that purports to no longer tolerate sexual violence. If if's true that that is our new societal value, then it's incumbent upon us to contribute to the environment that persecutes sexual violence, which is an environment of belief and acceptance of the accusation of the victim.


----------



## oknazevad

pemerton said:


> When someone says she's been harassed, I offer sympathy. But you expect me to believe that you say "I hope you're lying, because that would be easier for you to cope with".




Worse. He's saying "I hope you're lying, because that would be easier for *me* to cope with." What cruel, stupid, self-centered, childish . 

And there's nothing "grey" about sexual harassment. Asinine apologists.


----------



## mudbunny

Atlictoatl said:


> Even in an absence of additional witnesses beyond the victim of sexual assault, we as a society should be moving more fully towards believing the victim. While we can police against false accusation, the incidence of actual sexual violence is orders of magnitude greater than the incidence of false accusation (and, in fact, the "what about false accusation" movement is hyperbolized for political reasons).




I just wanted to isolate this and re-emphasize it.

The rate of false accusation is so insignificantly small as to be non-existent. People should be much more concerned with the number of assaults that do not get reported because of the way the justice system (and society as a whole, as evidenced by some people in this thread) treat those who accuse someone of assault.


----------



## Morrus

mudbunny said:


> I just wanted to isolate this and re-emphasize it.
> 
> The rate of false accusation is so insignificantly small as to be non-existent. People should be much more concerned with the number of assaults that do not get reported because of the way the justice system (and society as a whole, as evidenced by some people in this thread) treat those who accuse someone of assault.




Agreed. And, of course, irrelevant to this case except to those who want to distract from empathy with the victim in favour of their philosophical expertise...


----------



## Eltab

mudbunny said:


> The rate of false accusation is so insignificantly small as to be non-existent.



Tell that to _Rolling Stone_ magazine, which made a headline article out of one without doing their due diligence (Univ. of Virginia).  
They have - properly - been slammed down in Court.  I hope that even the Press will figure out they can't keep muddying the waters by amplifying false claims while poo-pooing real ones.

Another factor which protects high-status individuals* is having the resources to operate a Bimbo Eruptions Unit - one of which became famous in the 1990s.

* possibly a mis-description.  I think the protection is offered to members of a specific group / class of people who think they are separate, above, and 'better than' general society.

Fortunately not relevant to the incident which sparked this thread, but difficult to adjudicate justly: what do you do when both individuals were drunk &c at the time and nobody else was around?
He-said/she-said incidents are easily taken and run with by people on both opposite ends of the "blame them not us" axis.  I am thankful this incident happened out in public (but better that it had never happened at all) so there WERE third parties available to corroborate testimony.


----------



## MackMcMacky

*I believe BJ Hensley. Bill Webb sexually harassed her.*

I am not attempting to distract from anything. Others have argued that we should choose to believe accusers in regard to sexual harassment and assault to the point of what? Do we have a duty to condemn a person of sexual harassment based on an accusation alone without any other evidence? (In the case of Bill Webb there is plenty of evidence.) If so, I disagree. I think why I would disagree would be obvious to anyone who understands due process. 

*I agree there needs to be more done about sexual harassment*. I don't believe changing due process/burden of proof is the solution. In fact, I think it would do more harm than good for everyone. However, I am open to other ideas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Eltab said:


> Tell that to _Rolling Stone_ magazine, which made a headline article out of one without doing their due diligence (Virginia Tech).
> They have - properly - been slammed down in Court.  I hope that even the Press will figure out they can't keep muddying the waters by amplifying false claims while poo-pooing real ones.




And the Tawana Brawley case before it.  Yes, those things did happen.

But I reiterate: according to the FBI, the DOJ, and numerous academic studies, the rate of demonstrably false reporting of sexual assault and other sex-related crimes is 2-8%, roughly the same as for other crimes in general.  The fact that occasional cases of that nature do get national exposure does not justify the amount and character of skepticism that faces most victims who come forward and make a complaint.

_We simply don’t do that with other crimes._  Despite the extremely high profile erroneous Richard Jewel bombing case accusations, when we see news that someone has been accused of committing a terrorist act or a mass shooting, *very few* of us go “Yeah, right!”


----------



## Cergorach

What happened is nasty. No discussion about that.

The issue imho is not what happened, the issue is that it's not our job to 'convict' this person in the media (either of them). That's the police's job, that's why it's important for victims to go to the police. In this case the victim has stated VERY CLEARLY that she's not interested in doing that, and that is absolutely her choice. She views the case closed, maybe we should act as humans for once, respect that choice, and let the matter rest.

I'm a suspicious person, I always consider the worst in people, they could be the worst people. But always _acting _that way is not only unhealthy, but downright unhelpful. In this case it doesn't matter, the case is closed by the only person that has any say in the matter.


----------



## Eltab

Dannyalcatraz said:


> when we see news that someone has been accused of committing a terrorist act or a mass shooting, *very few* of us go “Yeah, right!”



I must be one of those very few, a rare gem indeed - or perhaps I am borderline-paranoid.
I wonder if the authorities have identified the correct person (as opposed to "Round up the usual suspects!" from _Casablanca_).  This is a question of evidence, which can be satisfied in short order.
I do not wonder "did it REALLY happen?"


----------



## Eltab

MackMcMacky said:


> Do we have a duty to condemn a person of sexual harassment based on an accusation alone without any other evidence?



A serial harasser is likely also a conniving manipulator who can / will work to _create_ the circumstances which make it most difficult for outsiders to get a grip on his behavior.  
For instances, any of the following
- Get victim alone away from any crowd
- "May I offer you a drink?"
- "Please don't tell the police; my wife and children - who I just happened to bring along on this trip as a vacation - would be so embarrassed."

The duty as I see it is to collect as much evidence as possible (reasonably possible) and maintain records in a place where the next victim - or her lawyer - can find them.  
You can't stop a perp on one incident (unless it's his first incident too and he decides to not ever cross that line again) but you can set things up so that he faces escalating likelihood and severity of consequences - including ultimately jail time and being sent places he would not willing go to, such as rehab and detox facilities - if / when he continues doing it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Eltab said:


> I must be one of those very few, a rare gem indeed - or perhaps I am borderline-paranoid.
> I wonder if the authorities have identified the correct person (as opposed to "Round up the usual suspects!" from _Casablanca_).



This is a real issue in the American justice system, as well as probably all others.  Still, it is statistically rare for such announcements or arrests to be made.  

But even so, the public dialog in cases not involving sexual harassment is completely different.  Few people beyond their immediate friends, family and attorneys publically professed the innocence of The Central Park 5.  Donald Trump took out a full page ad in the NYT to call for the DA & judge to throw the book at them.

After they were convicted and then subsequently exonerated, few apologized, including the mysteriously mum current POTUS.


> This is a question of evidence, which can be satisfied in short order.
> I do not wonder "did it REALLY happen?"




Which- to your immense credit- separates you from the people who are doing things like sending death threats to survivors of the Las Vegas shooting.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Eltab said:


> Tell that to _Rolling Stone_ magazine, which made a headline article out of one without doing their due diligence (Univ. of Virginia).
> They have - properly - been slammed down in Court.  I hope that even the Press will figure out they can't keep muddying the waters by amplifying false claims while poo-pooing real ones.
> 
> Another factor which protects high-status individuals* is having the resources to operate a Bimbo Eruptions Unit - one of which became famous in the 1990s.
> 
> * possibly a mis-description.  I think the protection is offered to members of a specific group / class of people who think they are separate, above, and 'better than' general society.
> 
> Fortunately not relevant to the incident which sparked this thread, but difficult to adjudicate justly: what do you do when both individuals were drunk &c at the time and nobody else was around?
> He-said/she-said incidents are easily taken and run with by people on both opposite ends of the "blame them not us" axis.  I am thankful this incident happened out in public (but better that it had never happened at all) so there WERE third parties available to corroborate testimony.




You're talking about one incident there out of how many thousand? The number of unreported sexual assaults would dwarf the number of false accusations by many times over.

Does that mean that the Rolling Stone incident is ok? No, they didn't do their due diligence (and were duly punished as you point out). However, one person making false accusations does not mean that our default position should be to disbelieve the victim unless than can provide concrete evidence (not that you are suggesting that we should, I'm talking about society in general).

In any case, that is not the situation here at all. What occurred happened in front of several witnesses and no party involved is disputing that fact. It definitely did occur (despite several people in this thread strangely trying to suggest otherwise).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The number of unreported sexual assaults would dwarf the number of false accusations by many times over.




 Current data suggests only 60% of all sexual assault cases are reported.

Investigation & prosection also lags: some cities have as much as a 10 year backlog on processing rape kits.  When you translate that into both letting offenders become _multiple_ offenders AND the unjustly accused living under a cloud of suspicion when they could easily be exonerated...

Two major root causes of that backlog: a lack of funding dedicated to doing the work, and that reservoir of distrust of victims I mentioned earlier leading to a lack of due dillegence on the part of investigators.


----------



## MaskedGuy

So this might be armchair psychology, but I'm making so far an observation of people doing victim blaming: It seems to be misplaced self defense.

In otherwords, it doesn't sound like they think Bill Webb is victim here, it sounds like they are blaming victim because they are afraid of hypothetical "well what if he is innocent and his career get ruined, that could happen to me!" scenario. Like, tone they are using sounds like "I heard once on Internet that someone got sentence for harmless flirting and their lives ruined!" while ignoring actual facts of this case(or whether anyone ever has actually had their lives ruined over "harmless" flirting whatever that is supposed to be) <_< So thats really dumb and selfish to me and showing glaring lack of empathy since they are indirectly making the whole topic about themselves and their insecurities.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That probably IS one element of it, at least for some.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

evilref said:


> Unnatural Lust
> 
> School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 2, witch 2
> 
> Casting Time 1 standard action
> 
> Components V, S
> 
> Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
> 
> Target one creature
> 
> Duration 1 round
> 
> Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
> 
> Your target is filled with lust and desire for a single creature or object as designated by you at the time of casting. That creature or object must be within the spell's range and perceivable by the target of the spell. The target is filled with the compulsion to rush to the subject of its lust and passionately kiss or caress that subject on its next turn, taking no other actions. If the target would not normally have lustful feelings toward the designated creature or object, it receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw.
> 
> The other spells are less immediately obvious, but more pervasive in how they directly replicat the methods used by RL abusers. Only now, it's made magically better, and yet somehow that's okay?
> 
> Also, no, killing a cute bunny doesn't count:
> 
> ...Promise him you will return and then release him with that haunting thought.
> 
> Because child abuse=+2 charisma is such an important mechanic.
> 
> 
> So just consider this. Is it one of your players casting unnatural lust, sexually abusing a child and then 'magically covering it up, or you as the DM casting the spells, describing what happens to an audience who...what, are just getting this as backstory?. I mean, the only reason to include the mechanics is so they can be used, so are you making the saving throws, or your players?
> 
> Or, you know, it was a terrible idea and even more terribly implemented, that at the point they've hit multiple incidents of terrible events, this is the one thing Paizo's admitted fault on and said mea culpa for.



this is vile...I don't play pathfinder, but I think the writer and editor should be fired for coming up with it... this is on many levels worse than the book of erotic fantasy, and that company shut down over it.


----------



## MaskedGuy

<_< Since the topic keeps getting derailed by Folca conversation, I suppose I should at least give people context of what they are talking about?


"Folca, the Gaunt Stranger, appears as an unnaturally tall, emaciated man dressed in gray clothing with golden buttons. His featureless face seems to have dozens of childlike hands pressing from within. Folca’s realm is a place of bedrooms, hideouts, kitchens, and playrooms where every perception of safety or protection harbors a hidden potential for terror."


Folca is Daemonic Harbinger, a quasi-deity under horsemen of apocalypse on Abaddon. His areas of concerns are "Abductions, Strangers, Sweets" and his subdomains include lust. What evilref was talking about is his obedience and boon mechanics. Obedience mechanic is for most zealous worshiper of a deity, if they perform their obedience daily, they get a boons from their god which include spell like abilities and usually skill bonuses and even maintain class features of prestige classes. Folca's obedience is "Stalk a child and make him witness or endure a horrifically brutal event. Promise him that you will return, and then release him with that haunting thought. Gain a +2 profane bonus on Charisma-based skill checks." and boon spell like abilities are "1: unnatural lust; 2: modify memory; 3: veil." Folca's art looks like his description from before, but he also has candy cane and large blood dripping sack in his hands. Otherwise, it doesn't really look more disturbing than The Beast from Over the Garden Wall or Summerween Trickster from Gravity Falls, but yeaaaaaaaaaah you get the point.


So in otherwords, Book of the Damned doesn't have mechanics for simulating child abuse, it has mechanic were you get bonus for performing daily child abuse. Up to you which one is worse  Obediences for evil demigods vary a lot whether they are just religious, dickish, kind of weird, gross, sexually deviant or just plain literal kitten/baby killing evil, here are examples of obediences for some of other daemonic harbingers in comparison: "Shoot a creature from the sky, or push one to its death from a great height.", "Trick an elderly creature into believing it has forgotten something.", "Work on crafting an ever-expanding manifesto of your hatreds and intolerances.", "Willingly play host to a parasite." and "Burn a living creature of at least the size of a cat or infant atop a pyre."


So yeah, Folca's is easily the most disturbing of all obediences I've seen and I'm shocked it got into to the book. I mean, sure it doesn't actually explicitly say it, but it does heavily imply it with unnatural lust being the boon and lust subdomain which is really crossing the line. Considering his picture heavily implies horrific child murder, I'm not sure why anybody felt need to imply directly that part, paizo could have easily left it at child murdering implications instead which is bad enough. And I thought previously that nascent demon lord Menxyr, The Coffin Groom's "Engage in acts of necrophilia" obedience was as bad it would get <_<


But yeah, I already sent James Jacobs emails on my thoughts on Folca and what should be done with it, so not gonna repeat those there, just have to state the obvious aka that he is really disturbing and makes me feel uncomfortable and I can't really imagine any gm ever using him as result.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MaskedGuy said:


> <_< Since the topic keeps getting derailed by Folca conversation, I suppose I should at least give people context of what they are talking about?
> 
> 
> "Folca, the Gaunt Stranger, appears as an unnaturally tall, emaciated man dressed in gray clothing with golden buttons. His featureless face seems to have dozens of childlike hands pressing from within. Folca’s realm is a place of bedrooms, hideouts, kitchens, and playrooms where every perception of safety or protection harbors a hidden potential for terror."
> 
> 
> Folca is Daemonic Harbinger, a quasi-deity under horsemen of apocalypse on Abaddon. His areas of concerns are "Abductions, Strangers, Sweets" and his subdomains include lust. What evilref was talking about is his obedience and boon mechanics. Obedience mechanic is for most zealous worshiper of a deity, if they perform their obedience daily, they get a boons from their god which include spell like abilities and usually skill bonuses and even maintain class features of prestige classes. Folca's obedience is "Stalk a child and make him witness or endure a horrifically brutal event. Promise him that you will return, and then release him with that haunting thought. Gain a +2 profane bonus on Charisma-based skill checks." and boon spell like abilities are "1: unnatural lust; 2: modify memory; 3: veil." Folca's art looks like his description from before, but he also has candy cane and large blood dripping sack in his hands. Otherwise, it doesn't really look more disturbing than The Beast from Over the Garden Wall or Summerween Trickster from Gravity Falls, but yeaaaaaaaaaah you get the point.
> 
> 
> So in otherwords, Book of the Damned doesn't have mechanics for simulating child abuse, it has mechanic were you get bonus for performing daily child abuse. Up to you which one is worse  Obediences for evil demigods vary a lot whether they are just religious, dickish, kind of weird, gross, sexually deviant or just plain literal kitten/baby killing evil, here are examples of obediences for some of other daemonic harbingers in comparison: "Shoot a creature from the sky, or push one to its death from a great height.", "Trick an elderly creature into believing it has forgotten something.", "Work on crafting an ever-expanding manifesto of your hatreds and intolerances.", "Willingly play host to a parasite." and "Burn a living creature of at least the size of a cat or infant atop a pyre."
> 
> 
> So yeah, Folca's is easily the most disturbing of all obediences I've seen and I'm shocked it got into to the book. I mean, sure it doesn't actually explicitly say it, but it does heavily imply it with unnatural lust being the boon and lust subdomain which is really crossing the line. Considering his picture heavily implies horrific child murder, I'm not sure why anybody felt need to imply directly that part, paizo could have easily left it at child murdering implications instead which is bad enough. And I thought previously that nascent demon lord Menxyr, The Coffin Groom's "Engage in acts of necrophilia" obedience was as bad it would get <_<
> 
> 
> But yeah, I already sent James Jacobs emails on my thoughts on Folca and what should be done with it, so not gonna repeat those there, just have to state the obvious aka that he is really disturbing and makes me feel uncomfortable and I can't really imagine any gm ever using him as result.




let me again remind you that is much worse than anything I saw in the erotic book that the company shut down...my god nothing about this is good.


----------



## Atlictoatl

Cergorach said:


> What happened is nasty. No discussion about that.
> 
> The issue imho is not what happened, the issue is that it's not our job to 'convict' this person in the media (either of them). That's the police's job, that's why it's important for victims to go to the police. In this case the victim has stated VERY CLEARLY that she's not interested in doing that, and that is absolutely her choice. She views the case closed, maybe we should act as humans for once, respect that choice, and let the matter rest.
> 
> I'm a suspicious person, I always consider the worst in people, they could be the worst people. But always _acting _that way is not only unhealthy, but downright unhelpful. In this case it doesn't matter, the case is closed by the only person that has any say in the matter.



A pattern of drunken, abusive behavior in public spaces, including other incidences of harassment, is a much larger issue than one victim has a say over, and individuals within the gaming community at large are completely within their rights to a) decide to no longer patronize Bill Webb and to b) tell others in their community about their decision and their reasons for doing so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Honestly, unless the guy does something significant enough to actually get him jailed, I’d probably be fine with his continued employment within the industry, but with the proviso that he _NEVER_ gets to represent the company at a con or online unless & until he gets treatment for his alcoholism* AND his inappropriate behavior.

IOW, I’m not going to advocate a permanent blackballing & boycott *if* he gets treatment and his employers do what THEY can to keep him out of temptation.  While effective, they potentially hurt too many innocent parties, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.


* binge drinking is often associated with alcoholism, and given the reports of his past behavior...


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, unless the guy does something significant enough to actually get him jailed, I’d probably be fine with his continued employment within the industry, but with the proviso that he _NEVER_ gets to represent the company at a con or online unless & until he gets treatment for his alcoholism* AND his inappropriate behavior.
> 
> IOW, I’m not going to advocate a permanent blackballing & boycott *if* he gets treatment and his employers do what THEY can to keep him out of temptation.  While effective, they potentially hurt too many innocent parties, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
> 
> 
> * binge drinking is often associated with alcoholism, and given the reports of his past behavior...



Has Bill been stopped from attending Cons representing Frog God Games though. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in that regard and Bill is still attending Cons on behalf of Frog God Games, but I do not know for certain.

Similarly, I would have thought that the incident would be enough for Paizo to ban Bill from attending future PaizoCons (the emphasis being banning Bill, not Frog God Games), but I haven’t seen any indication that has occurred either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Don’t know; I don’t attend cons, so don't track news about them very closely.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, unless the guy does something significant enough to actually get him jailed, I’d probably be fine with his continued employment within the industry, but with the proviso that he _NEVER_ gets to represent the company at a con or online unless & until he gets treatment for his alcoholism* AND his inappropriate behavior.
> 
> IOW, I’m not going to advocate a permanent blackballing & boycott *if* he gets treatment and his employers do what THEY can to keep him out of temptation.  While effective, they potentially hurt too many innocent parties, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
> 
> 
> * binge drinking is often associated with alcoholism, and given the reports of his past behavior...




FROG GOD GAMES is Bill Webb's company. THAT'S why I'm not supportting it anymore. If he were a developer or a designer or a favored freelancer or something that's not much better but it''s decidely different. I could wait for them to remove or fire the said offender in that case. But being that he's the owner? Nah. As much as I love FGG material? As much money as I've spent on their stuff over the years including at least 3 of their huge $100+ hardcovers? Nah. HARD PASS on anymore FGG stuff.


----------



## Gradine

ShinHakkaider said:


> FROG GOD GAMES is Bill Webb's company. THAT'S why I'm not supportting it anymore. If he were a developer or a designer or a favored freelancer or something that's not much better but it''s decidely different. I could wait for them to remove or fire the said offender in that case. But being that he's the owner? Nah. As much as I love FGG material? As much money as I've spent on their stuff over the years including at least 3 of their huge $100+ hardcovers? Nah. HARD PASS on anymore FGG stuff.




I'm pretty much on board with this. I could see changing that if Webb came clean about the way he views and/or treats women and seeks to make changes about _that._ However... 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, unless the guy does something significant enough to actually get him jailed, I’d probably be fine with his continued employment within the industry, but with the proviso that he _NEVER_ gets to represent the company at a con or online unless & until he gets treatment for his alcoholism* AND his inappropriate behavior.
> 
> IOW, I’m not going to advocate a permanent blackballing & boycott *if* he gets treatment and his employers do what THEY can to keep him out of temptation.  While effective, they potentially hurt too many innocent parties, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
> 
> 
> * binge drinking is often associated with alcoholism, and given the reports of his past behavior...




He and everyone else can miss me if they want to make it about the drinking. Drunkenness is not and never will be an excuse for harassment or assault (we can call Webb's behavior what it was, which was harassment at minimum, and avoid such unhelpful euphemisms as "inappropriate behavior"). Alcohol doesn't force anyone to behave completely counter to who they are sober; it simply removes the concern for consequences. It doesn't change who you are; it just removes your filters.

So if Bill Webb decides to address and get help for his alcoholism (instead of, you know, sign off on cheeky cartoon jokes about it?) Then good for him, I guess? Goodness knows we could all stand to go through life with fewer demons on our backs. But I wouldn't want anyone, include Webb himself, to fool themselves into thinking that was sufficient in addressing the underlying concerns regarding his harassment at PaizoCon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I didn’t say it was an excuse.  It’s not even a mitigating factor.  If guilty (as I think he is), he needs to be punished.

What his alcohol abuse is is a separate but interrelated issues the sexual harassment.  One issue is his personal perspective on the human dignity of women (and others).  The second issue is abuse of a substance that increases the odds that he will not control himself in a civil manner.

To clarify: he may or may not get treatment to change his attitude towards women, sexuality, etc.  BUT alcohol lowers inhibitions and increases the likelihood that one will act out, whether or not he’s sought out help on the first issue.

Now, personally, I know nothing of Mr. Webb, his family or his company beyond this report.  I believe that a boycott is perfectly justifiable, but only up to the point I mentioned.  If- and only if- he takes steps to apologize fully, seeks treatment for his issues, and (at least up until said treatment is completed) withdraws from public appearances at cons and other non-“mandatory” industry events.

Why?  Because he, as a human being, needs to be able to work to provide for himself & his family.  Blackballing him for life _even after his repentance _could be a significant stressor that leads to even worse behavior.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> I'm pretty much on board with this. I could see changing that if Webb came clean about the way he views and/or treats women and seeks to make changes about _that._ However...
> 
> 
> 
> He and everyone else can miss me if they want to make it about the drinking. Drunkenness is not and never will be an excuse for harassment or assault (we can call Webb's behavior what it was, which was harassment at minimum, and avoid such unhelpful euphemisms as "inappropriate behavior"). Alcohol doesn't force anyone to behave completely counter to who they are sober; it simply removes the concern for consequences. It doesn't change who you are; it just removes your filters.
> 
> So if Bill Webb decides to address and get help for his alcoholism (instead of, you know, sign off on cheeky cartoon jokes about it?) Then good for him, I guess? Goodness knows we could all stand to go through life with fewer demons on our backs. But I wouldn't want anyone, include Webb himself, to fool themselves into thinking that was sufficient in addressing the underlying concerns regarding his harassment at PaizoCon.



 I disagree with how you think inebriation works. The "real you" isn't the drunk you. It is the "impaired" you. If someone behaves awfully while they are drunk and they prove they are capable of not being drunk in the future that is highly significant in how to address how they should be treated in the future. *This is not a justification or an excuse to act poorly or criminally.* I'm not really interested in scarlet letters. I'm more interested in restitution and rehabilitation than retribution.


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I didn’t say it was an excuse.  It’s not even a mitigating factor.  If guilty (as I think he is), he needs to be punished.
> 
> What his alcohol abuse is is a separate but interrelated issues the sexual harassment.  One issue is his personal perspective on the human dignity of women (and others).  The second issue is abuse of a substance that increases the odds that he will not control himself in a civil manner.
> 
> To clarify: he may or may not get treatment to change his attitude towards women, sexuality, etc.  BUT alcohol lowers inhibitions and increases the likelihood that one will act out, whether or not he’s sought out help on the first issue.
> 
> Now, personally, I know nothing of Mr. Webb, his family or his company beyond this report.  I believe that a boycott is perfectly justifiable, but only up to the point I mentioned.  If- and only if- he takes steps to apologize fully, seeks treatment for his issues, and (at least up until said treatment is completed) withdraws from public appearances at cons and other non-“mandatory” industry events.
> 
> Why?  Because he, as a human being, needs to be able to work to provide for himself & his family.  Blackballing him for life _even after his repentance _could be a significant stressor that leads to even worse behavior.




I apologize that I misunderstood, but I have a few key concerns still:

1) Any act of contrition on Webb's part, in order to justify at least me (and really, I can only speak for myself), will need an acknowledgment that at worst alcohol _exacerbated _his issues in treating women at conventions, not that it _created_ or _caused _it. Anything else (e.g; "it wasn't me, it was the alcohol", "I shouldn't have been drinking", "anyone who knows the real me blah blah") is a dodge, a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue. Alcohol didn't make him harass a woman, it just made him that much more likely to do so.

2) Should such contrition actually be forthcoming, and we've seen signs of an actual change in attitudes and behaviors, I'd gladly have a change of heart myself.

3) One last note: I'm far more concerned for the lives and livelihoods of the women who have been or who would be targets of Webb or any other known or serial sexual harassers in the industry than I am about the livelihoods of said harassers. It is people like Webb who drive a lot of women out of the industry (see also: the tech industry). And it's their behavior that makes us, as consumers, necessarily have to choose whose livelihoods we want to continue to support. There's no sitting on the fence on this one, either. Continuing to financially support harassers is making a choice.



MackMcMacky said:


> I disagree with how you think inebriation works. The "real you" isn't the drunk you. It is the "impaired" you. If someone behaves awfully while they are drunk and they prove they are capable of not being drunk in the future that is highly significant in how to address how they should be treated in the future.




You're entitled to any wrong opinion you want. The thing that alcohol impairs is your *inhibitions*, not your inherent sense of right and wrong. Drunk you is the "real you", simply without concern for the consequences. Anyone who says differently is lying to themselves. And if the only thing stopping a man from harassing a woman is a concern for consequences of those actions, then I have serious concerns about the character of that person. For a more heinous example, see: Brock Turner.



> *This is not a justification or an excuse to act poorly or criminally.* I'm not really interested in scarlet letters. I'm more interested in restitution and rehabilitation than retribution.




This I can agree with. The problem is people are far more likely to avoid addressing key issues, deflect, distract, try to move on, then they are interested in restitution and rehabilitation. Again, *I want Bill Webb to make an honest change in his life and the way he treats women, sober or otherwise.* But until he does I'm under no obligation to support him, and in fact I kind of have an obligation to insist others do not _until such time as he admits to his problem and rehabilitates. _


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> I apologize that I misunderstood, but I have a few key concerns still:
> 
> 1) Any act of contrition on Webb's part, in order to justify at least me (and really, I can only speak for myself), will need an acknowledgment that at worst alcohol _exacerbated _his issues in treating women at conventions, not that it _created_ or _caused _it. Anything else (e.g; "it wasn't me, it was the alcohol", "I shouldn't have been drinking", "anyone who knows the real me blah blah") is a dodge, a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue. Alcohol didn't make him harass a woman, it just made him that much more likely to do so.
> 
> 2) Should such contrition actually be forthcoming, and we've seen signs of an actual change in attitudes and behaviors, I'd gladly have a change of heart myself.
> 
> 3) One last note: I'm far more concerned for the lives and livelihoods of the women who have been or who would be targets of Webb or any other known or serial sexual harassers in the industry than I am about the livelihoods of said harassers. It is people like Webb who drive a lot of women out of the industry (see also: the tech industry). And it's their behavior that makes us, as consumers, necessarily have to choose whose livelihoods we want to continue to support. There's no sitting on the fence on this one, either. Continuing to financially support harassers is making a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to any wrong opinion you want. The thing that alcohol impairs is your *inhibitions*, not your inherent sense of right and wrong. Drunk you is the "real you", simply without concern for the consequences. Anyone who says differently is lying to themselves. And if the only thing stopping a man from harassing a woman is a concern for consequences of those actions, then I have serious concerns about the character of that person. For a more heinous example, see: Brock Turner.
> 
> 
> 
> This I can agree with. The problem is people are far more likely to avoid addressing key issues, deflect, distract, try to move on, then they are interested in restitution and rehabilitation. Again, *I want Bill Webb to make an honest change in his life and the way he treats women, sober or otherwise.* But until he does I'm under no obligation to support him, and in fact I kind of have an obligation to insist others do not _until such time as he admits to his problem and rehabilitates. _



 How do you know he hasn't made an honest change in his life and the way he treats women? I don't know the guy. This went down in May right? So he's had months to seek counseling, make life changes, etc. How do you know?

P.S. If the drunk "you" is the real "you" then we are all rather primitive. I suppose it's an argument for the inherent depravity of all humanity. However, no real insight would thus be established about the unique deficiencies of any one person.


----------



## Guang

Gradine said:


> Continuing to financially support harassers is making a choice.



Deciding to boycott a harasser is generous and morally good, even bordering on heroic, depending on what you're going without. Not boycotting does not make someone in the wrong, though. An extreme unrelated example: If you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life, you are unequivocally a hero. If you don't decide to take a bullet for someone else, however, you have nothing to be ashamed of.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> I apologize that I misunderstood, but I have a few key concerns still:
> 
> 1) Any act of contrition on Webb's part, in order to justify at least me (and really, I can only speak for myself), will need an acknowledgment that at worst alcohol _exacerbated _his issues in treating women at conventions, not that it _created_ or _caused _it. Anything else (e.g; "it wasn't me, it was the alcohol", "I shouldn't have been drinking", "anyone who knows the real me blah blah") is a dodge, a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue. Alcohol didn't make him harass a woman, it just made him that much more likely to do so.
> 
> 2) Should such contrition actually be forthcoming, and we've seen signs of an actual change in attitudes and behaviors, I'd gladly have a change of heart myself.
> 
> 3) One last note: I'm far more concerned for the lives and livelihoods of the women who have been or who would be targets of Webb or any other known or serial sexual harassers in the industry than I am about the livelihoods of said harassers. It is people like Webb who drive a lot of women out of the industry (see also: the tech industry). And it's their behavior that makes us, as consumers, necessarily have to choose whose livelihoods we want to continue to support. There's no sitting on the fence on this one, either. Continuing to financially support harassers is making a choice.




Agreed with 1 & 2.

But I think you’re missing my point with 3, namely that if the punishment of the offender is too severe, not only do we indirectly risk punishing those who may be innocent (here, his family & employees, if any), we also may stress the offender to relapse- possibly at an escalated level- regardless of how sincere the repentance for the acts that rightfully incurred the punishment.

Excessive punishment of Webb may also factor negatively into the mental calculus of unknown offenders who may genuinely wish to change.  Instead of repentance, there is continued inappropriate behavior.

Both of these last 2 concerns are for potential future victims.


----------



## Sunseeker

Guang said:


> Deciding to boycott a harasser is generous and morally good, even bordering on heroic, depending on what you're going without. Not boycotting does not make someone in the wrong, though. An extreme unrelated example: If you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life, you are unequivocally a hero. If you don't decide to take a bullet for someone else, however, you have nothing to be ashamed of.




I don't know the inner workings of Frog God Games, how many people work there, what their contribution to the functioning of the company is, etc...  If it's _literally_ just him, then yeah, boycott products of the offender.  But lets say for example (since again, I don't know who, how many, or what kind of workers FGG may have) that Bill is pretty much "CEO" he meets with teams, talks about his ideas, but on the whole he largely guides the company.  Boycotting FGG's work isn't going to cut into Bill in this case.  It's going to cut into the writers, the staff, the editors and all of those people _first_ before Bill feels the squeeze.

Beyond that, boycotting FGG for Bill's actions is like giving up chocolate or beer for Lent.  You don't _need_ chocolate.  There are plenty of alternative sweets, there are plenty of alternative alcohols.  You're not really "sacrificing" for the greater good.  

People who boycott get the same response from me as people who don't: "okay."


----------



## Mouseferatu

MackMcMacky said:


> How do you know he hasn't made an honest change in his life and the way he treats women? I don't know the guy. This went down in May right? So he's had months to seek counseling, make life changes, etc. How do you know?




Not to put too fine a point on it, but if one is seeking to atone for something committed in public, something that is part of a publicly recognized pattern of problematic behavior in the industry, something that the public is calling you out/boycotting you for?

Then the steps you are taking to change your behavior also have to be public.

I'm sorry if that violates someone's idea of the privacy they're entitled to, but this isn't just about Bill changing his behavior. It's about making people feel safe around Bill, and ensuring to _our_ satisfaction--"us," in this case, being the audience and community with which he interacts--that it won't happen again. That requires _public_ contrition and _public_ evidence of change.


----------



## evilref

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why?  Because he, as a human being, needs to be able to work to provide for himself & his family.  Blackballing him for life _even after his repentance _could be a significant stressor that leads to even worse behavior.




If you go to a restaurant and have a  experience, bad food, long wait, bad service, etc. Do you go 'well, i'll keep coming back in case they get better', or do you stop going. Maybe, maybe if you read how they've turned it around, with multiple people saying that it's better now, you go back.

But that's not happened here. Months after the incident, having said nothing, they put out a deliberately antagonistic social media post, and a dismissive, do-nothing attempt at a justification.

Those aren't the actions of a company, or an individual, that gives a damn at all.


----------



## evilref

MackMcMacky said:


> How do you know he hasn't made an honest change in his life and the way he treats women? I don't know the guy. This went down in May right? So he's had months to seek counseling, make life changes, etc. How do you know?




The fact he said nothing, despite it being made public months after the event. The fact his company put out a ridiculous press announcement in which the sum total of his censure was 'In consequence of this finding, I and another senior partner of the company had a meeting with Mr. Webb about expectations, standards of behavior, and future protocol. We addressed that one’s lack of bad intentions does not excuse problematic behavior.'

The fact his company 'coincidentally' put out an inflammatory social media post and photo, which just so happened to directly refer to the incident on the day it went viral. (note, I don't think it's a coincidence, nor do many people, you can make your own mind up)

So, no, in no way has he shown any 'honest change in his life and how he treats women', in fact he and his company have shown the direct opposite.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I didn't say he had repented.  I see no evidence of it.  

But if he does...


----------



## Eltab

Webb being a part-owner of the company makes it harder but not impossible to pressure him from within the company.
Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney (from his days with Bain Capital) and Peter Lynch (former manager of Fidelity's _Magellan_ investment fund) have all pointed out in print that you can get rid of even a full-owner who is destroying his company.

I'd expect to see something from the following:
- Webb will not be attending public functions on the Company's behalf until further notice.  (_This action is the absolute minimum._)
- Webb will be going to detox/whatever to deal with the alcohol factor
- The other partners will buy out Webb's share of ownership and make him an employee.  This gives more leverage over him in future.
- Written apology from Webb to victim.  If victim agrees, apology will be made public.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Exactly.  I'd expect 1,2 & 4 in a big, high profile company trying to avoid backlash.  3 would be rare.  They'd be more likely to just fire/buyout a contract, even one with a golden parachute.   But buyouts in small businesses are a bit rarer because of the legal requirements for paying fair market value running into the issue of liquidity of the business or the owners.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> How do you know he hasn't made an honest change in his life and the way he treats women? I don't know the guy. This went down in May right? So he's had months to seek counseling, make life changes, etc. How do you know?




By talking about taking steps to transform himself as part of a public apology, for starters. Did I miss this? It's possible I missed this.



> P.S. If the drunk "you" is the real "you" then we are all rather primitive. I suppose it's an argument for the inherent depravity of all humanity. However, no real insight would thus be established about the unique deficiencies of any one person.




I think it instead speaks to how powerfully socialization constricts and inhibits our behaviors. To get Freudian, drunk you is your Id, free of the shackles of your Superego. Neurologically speaking, alcohol basically hands the keys of your body over to the "primitive" parts of the brain. Clearly that means that drunk you is going to do the things that you know better not to do. But it still means that you're going to do the things you _want_ to do. That's essentially the point that I'm making.


----------



## Gradine

Guang said:


> Deciding to boycott a harasser is generous and morally good, even bordering on heroic, depending on what you're going without. Not boycotting does not make someone in the wrong, though. An extreme unrelated example: If you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life, you are unequivocally a hero. If you don't decide to take a bullet for someone else, however, you have nothing to be ashamed of.




"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." - Desmond Tutu

Bill Webb (and, let's be honest, plenty of others like him) remaining a part of the industry without choosing to correct his behavior makes the industry a less safe place for women. I can't imagine how this could be a face in dispute. Therefore, choosing to do _nothing_ (and in fact, continuing to financially support Webb and his role in this industry) is _necessarily_ choosing a side.

I'll dial back a bit in that I can recognize that there are ways other than a boycott to apply pressure on Webb to change his behavior beyond. But continuing along as if nobody has any responsibility to change? That's choosing a side.


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed with 1 & 2.
> 
> But I think you’re missing my point with 3, namely that if the punishment of the offender is too severe, not only do we indirectly risk punishing those who may be innocent (here, his family & employees, if any), we also may stress the offender to relapse- possibly at an escalated level- regardless of how sincere the repentance for the acts that rightfully incurred the punishment.
> 
> Excessive punishment of Webb may also factor negatively into the mental calculus of unknown offenders who may genuinely wish to change.  Instead of repentance, there is continued inappropriate behavior.
> 
> Both of these last 2 concerns are for potential future victims.




Except the punishment is only there if he continues to choose _not_ to repent. If he does, and he's welcomed back into the community, then that _incentivizes_ other perpetrators into repenting as well, not the opposite. But the pressure has to be strong enough to force him and others like him to repent in order to be welcomed back into the community in the first place. If it's clear there are no consequences for his actions, or that the consequences are minimal at best, _that_ is what is going to dis-incentivize change.


----------



## Gradine

shidaku said:


> I don't know the inner workings of Frog God Games, how many people work there, what their contribution to the functioning of the company is, etc...  If it's _literally_ just him, then yeah, boycott products of the offender.  But lets say for example (since again, I don't know who, how many, or what kind of workers FGG may have) that Bill is pretty much "CEO" he meets with teams, talks about his ideas, but on the whole he largely guides the company.  Boycotting FGG's work isn't going to cut into Bill in this case.  It's going to cut into the writers, the staff, the editors and all of those people _first_ before Bill feels the squeeze.
> 
> Beyond that, boycotting FGG for Bill's actions is like giving up chocolate or beer for Lent.  You don't _need_ chocolate.  There are plenty of alternative sweets, there are plenty of alternative alcohols.  You're not really "sacrificing" for the greater good.
> 
> People who boycott get the same response from me as people who don't: "okay."




You raise a pretty good point, though others have pointed to some degree of culpability from the company as a whole. People generally have a choice for who they choose to work for also (see: the guy who bailed on the Empyrea project whose name is escaping him), though I also recognize that that might be an extremely difficult choice some, or might not seem (or actually be) no choice at all. If there were some sign that the Bill's employees were pressuring to him change, that might even sway me. But then, drunk Bill comic, so *shrug*

And a boycott is not a _sacrifice_, and framing it that way gives the implication of accusations of "virtue signalling", which we've covered up-thread. A boycott is voting with your dollars; we're all well aware that there are alternative products to spend on. A boycott is simply a signal to the company that we're choosing another product not because of the quality of their products, but because of the quality of their owner.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> Except the punishment is only there if he continues to choose _not_ to repent.




It might not have been you, but certain people in the thread stated/implied their vision of the boycott was permanent- an industry-wide blackballing.  My pushback was expressly intended to cover ONLY the situation of blackballing & boycotting when he has gotten treatment and apologized.  In no way was I advocating a slap on the wrist, nor cessation of a boycott should he remain unrepentant.


----------



## Guang

Gradine said:


> "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." - Desmond Tutu
> 
> Bill Webb (and, let's be honest, plenty of others like him) remaining a part of the industry without choosing to correct his behavior makes the industry a less safe place for women. I can't imagine how this could be a face in dispute. Therefore, choosing to do _nothing_ (and in fact, continuing to financially support Webb and his role in this industry) is _necessarily_ choosing a side.
> 
> I'll dial back a bit in that I can recognize that there are ways other than a boycott to apply pressure on Webb to change his behavior beyond. But continuing along as if nobody has any responsibility to change? That's choosing a side.




If that is the case, and you have chosen your side, I hope you are being consistent about your stand. I see Kevin Spacey is in three movies this year, and two next year. Weinstein also is the executive producer for two movies this year, and two next year. You will of course be boycotting those as well, as well as their previous works, and encouraging us to join you? And what about ex-president Bush, and Trump for that matter? I met a large group of pacifists when I was in college that refused to pay income tax because of the support it gave to the military. Some went further and deducted the percentage of the national budget that went towards military spending from their tax form. Pretty sure some of them got in serious trouble for tax evasion, too. Perhaps we should all do something similar? Or are you only willing to make a stand (and insist it is the only moral stance for all of us) when it costs you nothing?


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It might not have been you, but certain people in the thread stated/implied their vision of the boycott was permanent- an industry-wide blackballing.  My pushback was expressly intended to cover ONLY the situation of blackballing & boycotting when he has gotten treatment and apologized.  In no way was I advocating a slap on the wrist, nor cessation of a boycott should he remain unrepentant.




I think then, that we are basically arguing the same thing back and forth at each other then. My apologies


----------



## Gradine

Guang said:


> If that is the case, and you have chosen your side, I hope you are being consistent about your stand. I see Kevin Spacey is in three movies this year, and two next year. Weinstein also is the executive producer for two movies this year, and two next year. You will of course be boycotting those as well, as well as their previous works, and encouraging us to join you? And what about ex-president Bush, and Trump for that matter? I met a large group of pacifists when I was in college that refused to pay income tax because of the support it gave to the military. Some went further and deducted the percentage of the national budget that went towards military spending from their tax form. Pretty sure some of them got in serious trouble for tax evasion, too. Perhaps we should all do something similar? Or are you only willing to make a stand (and insist it is the only moral stance for all of us) when it costs you nothing?




We all have to choose our hills to stand and die on. For what it's worth, yes, I do try to remain consistent in my stance of which producers I will or will not support based on a history of sexual harassment and assault, and yes, that includes Weinstein and Spacey (and Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski, and Casey Affleck... ad nauseum). There's lots of things I avoid supporting for lots of different reasons, some you mentioned, some you don't, and there are issues you've mentioned that I don't feel rise to that same standard for me. I'm sure some of those college pacifists would declare me in the wrong for paying my taxes. But like I said earlier, I recognize there's a lot of different ways to effect change, and I do what I can, as a voter, as a politically engaged citizen, to push for what I believe in. Boycott is not the only legitimate strategy.

But then there's also the question of impact. Lots of people see Weinstein movies, and Woody Allen movies. I don't fool myself on the individual impact of my or other people's choices in regards to multi-million dollar pictures. But I certainly voiced my discontent, as a lot of other people did, and it ultimately got a Weinstein-backed film cancelled.

And I have to think... what does the actual customer base of FGG look like? And how many customers would they have to lose for it to make an impact on their bottom line? Enough to move their owner to take a hard look at their behavior at make a change? And what other pressure can we exert, through social media, through online forums, to push for change?

Honestly? I don't research every product I buy, because that would be exhausting if not impossible. I try to consume consistent with my beliefs, but I'll be the first to admit to not being perfect. But ignorance is only an excuse for as long as it exists. Once you're aware of where the line in the sand is, where you decide to stand (even if it means not moving at all) is a conscious choice, and one that reveals what you value, what matters to you. 

I like to think that I'm consistent in both my ideology and in my strategy, but I also have to admit that I am only one, human person. I eat meat. I don't research every single product I buy. I've done practically nothing, personally, to help bring power to Puerto Rico, or clean water to Flint, or to save the polar bears. And I'm sure that makes me part of the problem. The honest truth is, there's too many fracking problems in this world for every single person to do their part to solve every single one of them. We all have to choose the hills we stand and die on.

So when I say "if you choose to do nothing, to keep buying from FGG, to decide that the mental and physical well-being of women in the industry is not your problem, that is you choosing a side, that is you being part of the problem", understand that it's true, that I mean that, but that it comes from me with more empathy and less judgment (but admittedly not none) than might have originally come across.

Edit: What I mean to say is; being part of a problem does not, necessarily, make you a bad person. I understand that's an uncommonly presented belief, but I do believe it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> I think then, that we are basically arguing the same thing back and forth at each other then. My apologies



‘S all good! 

It’s entirely possible I was reading too much animosity into the posts I was responding to.


----------



## Sunseeker

Gradine said:


> You raise a pretty good point, though others have pointed to some degree of culpability from the company as a whole. People generally have a choice for who they choose to work for also (see: the guy who bailed on the Empyrea project whose name is escaping him), though I also recognize that that might be an extremely difficult choice some, or might not seem (or actually be) no choice at all. If there were some sign that the Bill's employees were pressuring to him change, that might even sway me. But then, drunk Bill comic, so *shrug*



Unless HR or other persons within the company are _active_ in suppressing action against Webb for anything he may be doing to employees at the company proper, I'm not going to hold the company as a whole accountable for Webb.  I do not believe we live in an economy with enough economic choice and mobility where people who hold extremely niche jobs (writing/developing content for TTRPGs) can just jump ship and expect to be employed again without substantial downtime.  And I won't put it on Webb's employees to make public overtures that they're trying to straighten Bill out.  It's not their responsibility and I won't make them responsible by association.



> And a boycott is not a _sacrifice_, and framing it that way gives the implication of accusations of "virtue signalling", which we've covered up-thread. A boycott is voting with your dollars; we're all well aware that there are alternative products to spend on. A boycott is simply a signal to the company that we're choosing another product not because of the quality of their products, but because of the quality of their owner.



Which is why my response was targetted at Guang's post talking about how goodly someone is when they boycott guys like Webb.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Mouseferatu said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if one is seeking to atone for something committed in public, something that is part of a publicly recognized pattern of problematic behavior in the industry, something that the public is calling you out/boycotting you for?
> 
> Then the steps you are taking to change your behavior also have to be public.
> 
> I'm sorry if that violates someone's idea of the privacy they're entitled to, but this isn't just about Bill changing his behavior. It's about making people feel safe around Bill, and ensuring to _our_ satisfaction--"us," in this case, being the audience and community with which he interacts--that it won't happen again. That requires _public_ contrition and _public_ evidence of change.



 Which public? The people who witnessed what happened at Paizocon or the internet? Why did you choose what you chose? 

I am getting weary of individuals on the internet who demand answers for incidents they weren't involved in and for which the parties to the incident have resolved whatever happened. This need to feel "safe" some are bringing up rings rather hollow. If you are going to a con that is remotely successful, there are any number of individuals who have committed misdemeanors or felonies in your presence. Going to a large retail store will expose you to potential danger.


----------



## Gradine

shidaku said:


> Unless HR or other persons within the company are _active_ in suppressing action against Webb for anything he may be doing to employees at the company proper, I'm not going to hold the company as a whole accountable for Webb.  I do not believe we live in an economy with enough economic choice and mobility where people who hold extremely niche jobs (writing/developing content for TTRPGs) can just jump ship and expect to be employed again without substantial downtime.  And I won't put it on Webb's employees to make public overtures that they're trying to straighten Bill out.  It's not their responsibility and I won't make them responsible by association.




I don't find myself able to argue against the bulk of this. It's true that many FGG employees probably can't just walk away or find work elsewhere. And yet... Bill Webb _is_ their responsibility. He is the public face of their hard work; he goes to the cons, he markets and sells everything they do. And if his actions are hurting their livelihood, they have just as much responsibility to demand a change as anybody else. One could argue they have an even greater responsibility. 

I'm not going to argue whether this is fair to them or not, because the answer to that is obvious; of course it isn't. This would involve putting their necks on the line. I don't want to diminish how difficult, scary, or dangerous this would be for them. Unfortunately whether something is fair or not does not make it any less true.



> Which is why my response was targetted at Guang's post talking about how goodly someone is when they boycott guys like Webb.




Gotcha, my bad.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> By talking about taking steps to transform himself as part of a public apology, for starters. Did I miss this? It's possible I missed this.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it instead speaks to how powerfully socialization constricts and inhibits our behaviors. To get Freudian, drunk you is your Id, free of the shackles of your Superego. Neurologically speaking, alcohol basically hands the keys of your body over to the "primitive" parts of the brain. Clearly that means that drunk you is going to do the things that you know better not to do. But it still means that you're going to do the things you _want_ to do. That's essentially the point that I'm making.



 And everyone has antisocial impulses that are regulated by socialization. So, there is nothing particularly revealing about any particular person misbehaving being drunk. Their "true" nature is not shown. Their "drunk at that moment" nature is shown.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> "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." - Desmond Tutu
> 
> Bill Webb (and, let's be honest, plenty of others like him) remaining a part of the industry without choosing to correct his behavior makes the industry a less safe place for women. I can't imagine how this could be a face in dispute. Therefore, choosing to do _nothing_ (and in fact, continuing to financially support Webb and his role in this industry) is _necessarily_ choosing a side.
> 
> I'll dial back a bit in that I can recognize that there are ways other than a boycott to apply pressure on Webb to change his behavior beyond. But continuing along as if nobody has any responsibility to change? That's choosing a side.



 Or, perhaps, you are in no place to judge whether someone has made a positive change and should leave it to those who are.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> And everyone has antisocial impulses that are regulated by socialization.




Do they? I don't really believe that. And even if I did, I'd still say there's a significant difference in the nature different types of antisocial impulses and what those might possible say about a person's self. Not every man has impulses to sexually harass and stalk women that are regulated entirely through socialization, just as a for instance.


----------



## MackMcMacky

I think it's interesting that we are to trust an accuser of sexual harassment but we have many people who feel we should not trust the very same person concerning when they think the matter has been resolved.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> Or, perhaps, you are in no place to judge whether someone has made a positive change and should leave it to those who are.




Except as a consumer of the types of products he sells I'm _exactly_ in the place to judge whether someone has made a positive change because my choice to continue to buy products from his company or not is entirely dependent on whether he has or not. And, to this point, I judge that he has not, and that's a judgment that seems to be the general consensus.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> I think it's interesting that we are to trust an accuser of sexual harassment but we have many people who feel we should not trust the very same person concerning when they think the matter has been resolved.




We're well past the point where this is a private, isolated incident between two individuals. You raise a point, and a good one, about respecting the wishes the victim. But this is no longer about litigating the single instance of what happened at PaizoCon. That's a fairly settled and resolved matter, for the most part. This is about what Bill Webb plans to do to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. That the answer so far seems to be "nothing, except maybe farm it for lols in a marketing campaign" is unacceptable to many of us.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> Except as a consumer of the types of products he sells I'm _exactly_ in the place to judge whether someone has made a positive change because my choice to continue to buy products from his company or not is entirely dependent on whether he has or not. And, to this point, I judge that he has not, and that's a judgment that seems to be the general consensus.



 I thought it was pretty clear that I was pointing out that you lack information to make the judgment. No one is disputing your "power of the purse".


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> We're well past the point where this is a private, isolated incident between two individuals. You raise a point, and a good one, about respecting the wishes the victim. But this is no longer about litigating the single instance of what happened at PaizoCon. That's a fairly settled and resolved matter, for the most part. This is about what Bill Webb plans to do to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. That the answer so far seems to be "nothing, except maybe farm it for lols in a marketing campaign" is unacceptable to many of us.



 You seem so sure of what really transpired and what has transpired from your internet vantage point. I think we should all exercise some caution about sweeping claims about something we aren't a party to. I think your response claiming this is a "public" matter could be described as lacking sufficient empathy for the victim.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> You seem so sure of what really transpired and what has transpired from your internet vantage point. I think we should all exercise some caution about sweeping claims about something we aren't a party to. I think your response claiming this is a "public" matter could be described as lacking sufficient empathy for the victim.




There is literally no dispute as to what actually transpired except from those with only an "internet vantage point". There are zero facts in contention from anyone who was actually involved in what happened at PaizoCon, and I completely agree with Hensley that the matter that specific incident is well and truly settled. I can empathize strongly with the desire to leave it well enough alone, and I am more than happy to leave her and what she had go through out of any conversation that moves forward.

The "public" matter is what happens next. The "public" matter, at this point, has nothing to do with the victim ad everything to do with the perpetrator.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Gradine said:


> There is literally no dispute as to what actually transpired except from those with only an "internet vantage point". There are zero facts in contention from anyone who was actually involved in what happened at PaizoCon, and I completely agree with Hensley that the matter that specific incident is well and truly settled. I can empathize strongly with the desire to leave it well enough alone, and I am more than happy to leave her and what she had go through out of any conversation that moves forward.
> 
> The "public" matter is what happens next. The "public" matter, at this point, has nothing to do with the victim ad everything to do with the perpetrator.



 You just brought her name up. And no, we don't know what happened after the incident. Others do and I see no reason for someone to armchair quarterback this one.


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> You just brought her name up. And no, we don't know what happened after the incident. Others do and I see no reason for someone to armchair quarterback this one.




You're the one brought her up in the first place. And it's clear you're more interested in being a "devil's advocate" than having a serious conversation about a serious problem in our hobby and the industry that supplies it, so I'm done with this.


----------



## Eltab

MackMcMacky said:


> there is nothing particularly revealing about any particular person misbehaving being drunk. Their "true" nature is not shown. Their "drunk at that moment" nature is shown.



Paraphrasing Martin Luther:
the man drunk is the man sober, without the veneer of civilization.


----------



## Boozer

I think we really have to be careful how we conduct ourselves. Clearly these aren't just off color remarks. Goodness we all have off color remarks.

Also while I can only speak for myself, when drunk I am still myself. Regardless, drunkenness isn't an excuse.


----------



## prosfilaes

pming said:


> virtue signaling




To some degree, virtue signaling is how society works. If one of your group steals stuff from the game shop, and the group gets offended, then they're less likely to steal when you're around, and they're less likely to assume that everyone else is going to feel that's cool. And it's possible that someone else in your group will see this, and decide that it's not cool, that it's not socially acceptable to steal from your FLGS.

I believe there's a lot of evil in the hearts of men. And part of society is when someone is thinking about doing something wrong, that they can be discouraged by the fact that the people they have to deal with are going to respond negatively to them for doing it. Sociopaths sometimes live full uncriminal lives because society has successfully taught them they will be punished if they cross the wrong lines.

A documentary TV show about fake 999 calls recently had a bartender who killed a man in his bar in front of two witnesses, who he thought would never come forward. It turns out he was wrong, and maybe if they'd virtue signaled that whatever else their crimes, they didn't truck with murder, he wouldn't have attacked the man with a knife, or at least called for an ambulance while there was still time for it to be assault instead of murder.


----------



## Eltab

prosfilaes said:


> To some degree, virtue signaling is how society works.
> 
> A documentary TV show about fake 999 calls



b) Do you mean fake 9-1-1 calls?

a) There are two forms of virtue signaling.  
One states that an act or behavior is bad / evil / unacceptable.  It is forward-looking, towards an act that has been considered but has not been taken yet.  As you note, this happens all the time and is a necessary component of a functioning society.
The obnoxious form of virtue signaling is backward-looking.  A person gets up and basically says "I condemn this horrible act that just happened, so I'm a member of the Cool People - and I'm better than you, because I said it first."


----------



## Eltab

Boozer said:


> drunkenness isn't an excuse.



Given your screen name, I was expecting something much less ... sober.  

Alcohol is a lubricant of the brain.  How many Darwin Award stories begin with "We had all been drinking..."?


----------



## kenmarable

Eltab said:


> b) Do you mean fake 9-1-1 calls?
> 
> a) There are two forms of virtue signaling.
> One states that an act or behavior is bad / evil / unacceptable.  It is forward-looking, towards an act that has been considered but has not been taken yet.  As you note, this happens all the time and is a necessary component of a functioning society.
> The obnoxious form of virtue signaling is backward-looking.  A person gets up and basically says "I condemn this horrible act that just happened, so I'm a member of the Cool People - and I'm better than you, because I said it first."




999 is the UK's 911. (Or maybe 911 is the US's 999.  Either way 911 is primarily a North American thing)

"Obnoxious virtue signalling" is one of those go-to's that people like to use against those they disagree with, but in reality doesn't really exist enough to be an issue. People condemn actions because they actually find them unacceptable.


----------



## prosfilaes

Eltab said:


> a) There are two forms of virtue signaling.
> One states that an act or behavior is bad / evil / unacceptable.  It is forward-looking, towards an act that has been considered but has not been taken yet.  As you note, this happens all the time and is a necessary component of a functioning society.
> The obnoxious form of virtue signaling is backward-looking.  A person gets up and basically says "I condemn this horrible act that just happened, so I'm a member of the Cool People - and I'm better than you, because I said it first."




Actually, I was including all those times people got upset about various things on the news or in recent events. This reactions on this thread tell people that drunken harassment is not considered acceptable by a large part of the community. Talking about things that are happening is as frequent a way of communicating social values as preventative statements. Both of them can be used smugly, but complaints about virtue signaling seem to be at least as often about value conflict as any sort of smug superiority.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Boozer said:


> I think we really have to be careful how we conduct ourselves. Clearly these aren't just off color remarks. Goodness we all have off color remarks.
> 
> Also while I can only speak for myself, when drunk I am still myself. Regardless, drunkenness isn't an excuse.



 I wish people would pay attention to context, the flow of conversation in this case. 

I had someone claim that drunken behavior demonstrated someone's "true" nature. I pointed out that drunken behavior demonstrates someone's "impaired" nature. I don't know anyone who is claiming drunkenness is an excuse. I am disputing the unscientific opinion that drunken behavior is some sort of alignment and personality detector. 

A response to a different poster: Martin Luther believed in original sin and human depravity. He may believe that being drunk demonstrates someone's inner nature but he would argue that everyone has a horrible nature to begin with. Another poster is trying to claim that Webb's behavior drunk is a precise indicator of what Webb really is compared to the average angelic member of the community. I think that's ridiculous. What a guy does once when he is drunk isn't a personality test.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I had someone claim that drunken behavior demonstrated someone's "true" nature. I pointed out that drunken behavior demonstrates someone's "impaired" nature.




Most accurately, alcohol (and certain other drugs) lower inhibitions and impair your impulse control.  It’s not “true” nor “impaired” nature or personality.  I know one homicide in which a person committed a double homicide while blackout drunk.  He didn’t know the people he killed.  He had no motive.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most accurately, alcohol (and certain other drugs) lower inhibitions and impair your impulse control.  It’s not “true” nor “impaired”.  I know one homicide in which a person committed a double homicide while blackout drunk.  He didn’t know the people he killed.  He had no motive.



 Okay, impaired nature, impaired impulse control; po-tay-to, po-taw-to...


----------



## KthulhuX

I have bought a lot of products from Frog God Games in the past, and really only stopped getting everything they have published a few years ago due to financial issues.  Financial issues that will hopefully be clearing up early next year.  I plan to pick back up with being a regular FGG customer.  It's not that I don't disagree with Bill's behavior, I do.  But honestly, if you look closely enough into any company /artist / whatever; you almost certainly will find behavior or ideology that you strongly disagree with.  Hemmingway was a mentally ill drunk.  William S. Burroughs killed his wife.  William Golding tried to rape a 15-year old girl.  Anne Perry murdered her own mother.  J. D. Salinger was a pedophile and cheated on his wife.  Norman Mailer stabbed and nearly killed his wife.  I could go on and on....should we relegate all of their works to the trash bin?

Not saying that others aren't perfectly justified if they do decide to never again make a purchase from FGG.  Just explaining why I personally WILL continue to be a customer.  Because, for my money, FGG is one of the best RPG publishers active today.

I only scanned the first couple of pages, so this may have been mentioned before, but it's also worth noting that Paizo themselves are rumored to have encouraged employees to suppress accounts of similar incidents, based on some of the Twitter posts of a former employee.


----------



## Lwaxy

Rumors... there are rumors, too, that an alien craft is held in a place called Area 51. 

I do not ever give credit to rumors. Give me some facts, and I'll get interested. And by facts I mean place and date, people involved etc. 

I can fully understand why people, female or male, want to resolve things without all the publicity. Just looking at this thread makes me feel dizzy, and I'm not even involved in any of it. The victim (and I hate the word here because to me she de-victimized herself by not letting it go unnoticed) has asked to let the matter rest, yet people will be going on and on about it anyway. 

Yes, I know it is now about Bill and his actions and to make sure such an incident does not happen again. But is it helpful to keep bashing Bill, calling him all sorts of things? How helpful will that be to make him reconsider his substance abuse and predatory behavior? And how does an apology from him help if he is only doing it because everyone expects him to do it? He is either sorry and wants to prevent any more of such incidents himself, in which case it will now be hard to make a statement in that effect without everyone thinking he is only doing it because it is expected. Or he isn't sorry for anything except being caught in the act, in which case it makes no difference if he apologizes or not. He'll stay a predatory drunk, and no one will be the safer around him. 

Now none of us know if this was the first time he showed real predatory tendencies. If it was, it is possible he is still in denial about the seriousness of this, as we all tend to find excuses or mitigating factors for our own behaviors. Especially for something so serious. If it wasn't, he might struggle with the fact that he's become a serial drunk and predator. 

I would hope he's at least not going to conventions and similar events anymore until he's dealt with both of his issues. But I will not boycott good products over this, especially not from Paizo where I can't see proof for any wrongdoing. If something like this would come to light again, or if it turns out Bill has harassed women in the past and gods forbid, the staff of FGG knew and swiped it under the rug,  my response will likely be different.


----------



## Caliban

Lwaxy said:


> I can fully understand why people, female or male, want to resolve things without all the publicity. Just looking at this thread makes me feel dizzy, and I'm not even involved in any of it. The victim (and I hate the word here because to me she de-victimized herself by not letting it go unnoticed) has asked to let the matter rest, yet people will be going on and on about it anyway.




I don't really like throwing the word "victim" around either.  In American culture the term has connotations of weakness.  

In my mind she was the target of harassment, but she never allowed herself to be a victim.


----------



## mythago

KthulhuX said:


> But honestly, if you look closely enough into any company /artist / whatever; you almost certainly will find behavior or ideology that you strongly disagree with.  Hemmingway was a mentally ill drunk.  William S. Burroughs killed his wife.  William Golding tried to rape a 15-year old girl.  Anne Perry murdered her own mother.  J. D. Salinger was a pedophile and cheated on his wife.  Norman Mailer stabbed and nearly killed his wife.  I could go on and on....should we relegate all of their works to the trash bin?




Except for Anne Perry, they're all dead. So we really don't have to worry about Ernest Hemingway or Norman Mailer showing up drunk at PaizoCon or any other con and stalking people. (Even setting aside the odd comparison between classic works of literature and RPG supplements....)

Let's also avoid begging the question with the overdramatic 'trash bin'. Nobody has suggested that Frog God Games be dismantled and its works burned. The question is whether or not someone chooses to do business with them generally or to put money in Bill Webb's pocket specifically.

And maybe you fall on the side of "yes, because I like their stuff lots". That's fine. But once you start exaggerating and downplaying how realistic a choice it is to say "no, I would prefer not to", maybe that's when you need to take a thoughtful look at why you've made that decision.


----------



## pemerton

Lwaxy said:


> Now none of us know if this was the first time he showed real predatory tendencies. If it was, it is possible he is still in denial about the seriousness of this, as we all tend to find excuses or mitigating factors for our own behaviors. Especially for something so serious. If it wasn't, he might struggle with the fact that he's become a serial drunk and predator.



This post seemed to suggest that this incident did not come out of nowhere:



Nikchick said:


> In discussing Bill Webb's behavior in this thread I have seen a few people willing to offer him the "but he was drunk and people do  sometimes when they're drunk..." excuse. This excuse doesn't fly for reasons others have already elaborated upon but I will tell you SPECIFICALLY why it cannot be used to soften the criticism against Bill in particular. Bill is not an occasional drunk. He is a routine, PROUD heavy-drinker. Inviting him, oo in the case of PaizoCon merely allowing him, to participate in your convention means not that he "might" be drunk but that he WILL be drunk and he's already shown that he cannot be trusted to behave according to expected standards when drunk.


----------



## MackMcMacky

The incident happened. Those wronged felt that it had been resolved. Other people didn't and put it out there for armchair quarterbacks everywhere to draw their conclusions based on second-hand or third-hand information. 

Some people seem to be indicating that the transgressor is irredeemable. One going so far as to essentially claim that how you behave when your are drunk is your "true self" as if it's a scientific diagnostic tool for personalities. 

I think many of us are aware of the limited information we have to go on and an interest in a healthy resolution rather than getting several pounds of flesh. If the behavior is related to alcoholism then there are treatments available to help control those impulses.


----------



## Lwaxy

pemerton said:


> This post seemed to suggest that this incident did not come out of nowhere:





Indeed, it however said nothing of former sexual assaults. It is a different thing if someone acts bad when drunk, even if it happened regularly.


----------



## Ravensworth

Morrus said:


> I want to make it clear that if you’re looking for a place to tell everybody about how you don’t believe the victim here, you are in the wrong place. I am not going to condone or facilitate victim blaming on this website, or tolerate its presence.



You already allowed it on page one of this thread. 
For the life of me I cannot understand why you let the post where Victim is in quotation marks stay on the page. I believe it should have been removed and the person warned and in it's place you stating in red why it was removed not a warning that you will remove such posts in the future. That is a paper tiger.
Sorry I have no time for people who threaten. Either you tolerate it or you don't. If you don't then remove the post and get out the ban hammer if your TOS or EULA is violated. If you are not going to do that stop posing!


----------



## Lwaxy

Seriously? To me it is so very obvious why the post was left up - to show what the problem with it was, especially so that other people won't post the exact same thing and then claiming ignorance about it. Oh sure, you could delete it and explain, but then you'd basically have to repeat the post, no? Because the quotation marks or what they are implying might not even have been obvious to everyone. 

Your post makes it sound you believe the poster wasn't warned. But you can't know that. 

My troll alarm goes of when I see someone with just 2 posts including this one shooting off at the owner of the site. A paper troll maybe, but still.


----------



## Caliban

Ravensworth said:


> For the life of me I cannot understand why you let the post where Victim is in quotation marks stay on the page.




For the life of me, I cannot understand why you think this fake moral outrage will fool anyone.   

I mean, trying to claim the moral high ground so you can berate a moderator for not doing their job up to your personal "standards" is audacious, but still a rather obvious troll. 

My guess is someone who was kicked off the thread decided to re-use a fake account originally created to give a positive review for a product.


----------



## Eltab

MackMcMacky said:


> A response to a different poster: Martin Luther believed in original sin and human depravity. He may believe that being drunk demonstrates someone's inner nature but he would argue that everyone has a horrible nature to begin with. Another poster is trying to claim that Webb's behavior drunk is a precise indicator of what Webb really is compared to the average angelic member of the community. I think that's ridiculous. What a guy does once when he is drunk isn't a personality test.



I presume that means me.  How am I supposed to find your reply when you don't 'ping' me when you say it?


----------



## MackMcMacky

Eltab said:


> I presume that means me.  How am I supposed to find your reply when you don't 'ping' me when you say it?



 I didn't have time at the time to look up who said what. I was simply stating my opinion about the idea.


----------



## mythago

MackMcMacky said:


> The incident happened. Those wronged felt that it had been resolved. Other people didn't and put it out there for armchair quarterbacks everywhere to draw their conclusions based on second-hand or third-hand information.
> 
> Some people seem to be indicating that the transgressor is irredeemable. One going so far as to essentially claim that how you behave when your are drunk is your "true self" as if it's a scientific diagnostic tool for personalities.
> 
> I think many of us are aware of the limited information we have to go on and an interest in a healthy resolution rather than getting several pounds of flesh. If the behavior is related to alcoholism then there are treatments available to help control those impulses.




This is an excellent example of how one can use the curious grammar of English to sanitize awkward facts.

"The incident happened" excises the actor. Mr. Webb didn't do anything; he certainly didn't make a decision to get drunk and harass someone to the point that he had to be physically restrained from doing so. An "incident" merely "happened", like an errant meteor striking the earth, or a freak lightning strike burning a house down. Mistakes were made. These things happen. Move along.

"Those wronged felt that it had been resolved" again centers that most-regrettable-but-certainly-blameless incident as the only thing that needs to be resolved; certainly not the question of why Mr. Webb felt he could get away with this or whether he is going to be a problem at future conventions. No need to discuss this; the people wronged by that unfortunate-but-morally-neutral incident feel it is over with, so shouldn't the rest of us shut our yaps and move along?


----------



## Gradine

MackMcMacky said:


> Some people seem to be indicating that the transgressor is irredeemable. One going so far as to essentially claim that how you behave when your are drunk is your "true self" as if it's a scientific diagnostic tool for personalities.




If you'd bothered to read my posts at all you'd see the multiple times that I stated that I _wanted_ the transgressor to redeem themselves, and in fact outlined the steps that would be required for me to believe and accept such redemption. 

I also don't believe I used the phrase "true self" when describing somebody's behavior while drunk. Socialization is a pretty important part of a person's personality. That said, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] said better than I did when he described being drunk as a lack of "impulse control". How you behave while drunk certainly indicates what your baser impulses are, and when those impulses involve demeaning and harassing women then that concerns me.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

"Guilty until proven innocent"?

Whoa there, people.

The incident with Bill Webb was investigated by the company. They found that enough evidence existed that Bill was HR'd over the matter -- he's even admitted it happened and expressed regret for the events through the company spokesperson. 

Let's just read that again: Bill Webb _*admitted *_that he sexually harassed the person in question.

As for Mentzer, much of what's got him into trouble is visible for all to see in the form of screen captures. It's not a matter of "did he do these things or didn't he?" It's a matter of whether or not people believe he did this stuff because he's a) just some guy who is so anti-social and unaware of how to properly interact with people that he was just being an antisocial idiot or b) a sexually harassing, creepy idiot.  Regardless of whether you fall on the side of a) or b), the fact remains that he DID initially send some creepy messages and has since done his fair share of the sort of victim blaming you see from people who say things like "what did she expect wearing a skirt like that?"

So, let's just toss out the whole "guilty until proven innocent" schtick.

In both incidents, irrefutably the behaviour surrounding the complaints provably DID happen. Everything else is just a matter of how much your own lack of empathy for the women on the receiving end enables you to forgive the actors in those incidents.

As for this guy saying there's nothing wrong with inviting them both as special guests to this new convention so long as they, essentially, show up in their "gamer" personas and not their "sexual harasser" personas, well ... that just speaks all sorts of things about his level of empathy and consideration for the women who will be at that event. "We'll just have to see if they do something worth tossing them out for" is hardly providing a welcoming environment to attendees who, statistically speaking, are going to have suffered at the hands of people like Webb and Mentzer throughout their lives and, for their own part, just want to go there and game and not have to worry about a "let's wait and see if they f' up" policy. As someone else pointed out, it's like inviting someone who is under suspicion of pedophilia to babysit your kids, entrusting your kids' well-being to them with a "he's not a risk until we see him molest our kids" attitude. It's not an intellectual game -- it's a risk assessment where your priorities are all sorts of f'd up.

Geez, people, the fact that this has to be explained to so many posters in this thread gives me little hope for humanity. By how some of you talk, it's like this is a hypothetical intellectual exercise with no real people involved.


----------



## MackMcMacky

mythago said:


> This is an excellent example of how one can use the curious grammar of English to sanitize awkward facts.
> 
> "The incident happened" excises the actor. Mr. Webb didn't do anything; he certainly didn't make a decision to get drunk and harass someone to the point that he had to be physically restrained from doing so. An "incident" merely "happened", like an errant meteor striking the earth, or a freak lightning strike burning a house down. Mistakes were made. These things happen. Move along.
> 
> "Those wronged felt that it had been resolved" again centers that most-regrettable-but-certainly-blameless incident as the only thing that needs to be resolved; certainly not the question of why Mr. Webb felt he could get away with this or whether he is going to be a problem at future conventions. No need to discuss this; the people wronged by that unfortunate-but-morally-neutral incident feel it is over with, so shouldn't the rest of us shut our yaps and move along?



 This is an excellent example of how one can twist anything to fit a preferred narrative. 

The incident happened. It was resolved. Is not "sanitizing" anything. Bill Webb's conduct has been discussed ad infinitum. I didn't feel like wasting words on covered ground. No one is "white washing", "sanitizing", or "deflecting" in any way. Apparently, some of you think a small con needs to have legalistic, codified rules about sexual harassment and some of us disagree with you.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> "Guilty until proven innocent"?
> 
> Whoa there, people.
> 
> The incident with Bill Webb was investigated by the company. They found that enough evidence existed that Bill was HR'd over the matter -- he's even admitted it happened and expressed regret for the events through the company spokesperson.
> 
> Let's just read that again: Bill Webb _*admitted *_that he sexually harassed the person in question.
> 
> As for Mentzer, much of what's got him into trouble is visible for all to see in the form of screen captures. It's not a matter of "did he do these things or didn't he?" It's a matter of whether or not people believe he did this stuff because he's a) just some guy who is so anti-social and unaware of how to properly interact with people that he was just being an antisocial idiot or b) a sexually harassing, creepy idiot.  Regardless of whether you fall on the side of a) or b), the fact remains that he DID initially send some creepy messages and has since done his fair share of the sort of victim blaming you see from people who say things like "what did she expect wearing a skirt like that?"
> 
> So, let's just toss out the whole "guilty until proven innocent" schtick.
> 
> In both incidents, irrefutably the behaviour surrounding the complaints provably DID happen. Everything else is just a matter of how much your own lack of empathy for the women on the receiving end enables you to forgive the actors in those incidents.
> 
> As for this guy saying there's nothing wrong with inviting them both as special guests to this new convention so long as they, essentially, show up in their "gamer" personas and not their "sexual harasser" personas, well ... that just speaks all sorts of things about his level of empathy and consideration for the women who will be at that event. "We'll just have to see if they do something worth tossing them out for" is hardly providing a welcoming environment to attendees who, statistically speaking, are going to have suffered at the hands of people like Webb and Mentzer throughout their lives and, for their own part, just want to go there and game and not have to worry about a "let's wait and see if they f' up" policy. As someone else pointed out, it's like inviting someone who is under suspicion of pedophilia to babysit your kids, entrusting your kids' well-being to them with a "he's not a risk until we see him molest our kids" attitude. It's not an intellectual game -- it's a risk assessment where your priorities are all sorts of f'd up.
> 
> Geez, people, the fact that this has to be explained to so many posters in this thread gives me little hope for humanity. By how some of you talk, it's like this is a hypothetical intellectual exercise with no real people involved.



 I read what Mentzer wrote. I also read the back and forth about what it all meant. It all felt like a witch hunt to me. Bill Webb screwed up and the person he harassed felt it was resolved. I'm all for second chances. If Bill Webb, shows up sober and games that's great. I trust the people on the ground to make the judgment. We used to believe in redemption in this country. A whole host of reforms were implemented based on the notion of charity, mercy, and rehabilitation. I guess a lot of people are over that.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

MackMcMacky said:


> I read what Mentzer wrote. I also read the back and forth about what it all meant. It all felt like a witch hunt to me. Bill Webb screwed up and the person he harassed felt it was resolved. I'm all for second chances. If Bill Webb, shows up sober and games that's great. I trust the people on the ground to make the judgment. We used to believe in redemption in this country. A whole host of reforms were implemented based on the notion of charity, mercy, and rehabilitation. I guess a lot of people are over that.



"Witch hunt" ... yeah, funny how often that term gets brought up to defend people caught sexually harassing others. Almost like it's a favourite excuse used by people who don't truly understand what sexual harassment does to a person because they're not in the demographic most likely to be victimized by it.

Funny, that.

And redemption? Again, it's always funny how we have to give them a second chance when the only reason we know about the first chance is because they got caught THIS time. With Bill Webb, it's an example of repeated conduct that is apparently an open secret at cons with only the most recent incident being apologized for after he was investigated by his own company. Mentzer, on the other hand, is still in full on denial mode while still doing his best to keep digging the hole he's standing in deeper. So how does someone get redeemed when they aren't even able to admit their own fault?

Now consider that the person Webb harassed considers it resolved isn't the same as she forgives Webb and wants to be alone with him in a game room at a convention. It means she understands the steps taken and accepts them. Again, believing that "resolved" is victim-speak for "we're all peachy keen over here!" is an example of someone who doesn't understand sexual harassment very well, from just about every possible angle.

(BTW, I'm Canadian, so go wave that "America used to protect misogyny!" flag elsewhere, cowboy.)


----------



## MackMcMacky

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> "Witch hunt" ... yeah, funny how often that term gets brought up to defend people caught sexually harassing others. Almost like it's a favourite excuse used by people who don't truly understand what sexual harassment does to a person because they're not in the demographic most likely to be victimized by it.
> 
> Funny, that.
> 
> And redemption? Again, it's always funny how we have to give them a second chance when the only reason we know about the first chance is because they got caught THIS time. With Bill Webb, it's an example of repeated conduct that is apparently an open secret at cons with only the most recent incident being apologized for after he was investigated by his own company. Mentzer, on the other hand, is still in full on denial mode while still doing his best to keep digging the hole he's standing in deeper. So how does someone get redeemed when they aren't even able to admit their own fault?
> 
> Now consider that the person Webb harassed considers it resolved isn't the same as she forgives Webb and wants to be alone with him in a game room at a convention. It means she understands the steps taken and accepts them. Again, believing that "resolved" is victim-speak for "we're all peachy keen over here!" is an example of someone who doesn't understand sexual harassment very well, from just about every possible angle.
> 
> (BTW, I'm Canadian, so go wave that "America used to protect misogyny!" flag elsewhere, cowboy.)



 You come off very poorly here with obvious ad hominem attacks. Where was Bill Webb when he got drunk and staggeringly and boorishly made advances to someone? Was it Canada? Where was Mentzer when he told someone they were stunningly beautiful and brilliant? Was it Canada?

I get it. You think anyone who disagrees with you about how to assess and deal with sexual harassment is a bad person who is ignorant. 

And the "cowboy" thing, really? Please calm down before you write.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

MackMcMacky said:


> You come off very poorly here with obvious ad hominem attacks. Where was Bill Webb when he got drunk and staggeringly and boorishly made advances to someone? Was it Canada? Where was Mentzer when he told someone they were stunningly beautiful and brilliant? Was it Canada?
> 
> I get it. You think anyone who disagrees with you about how to assess and deal with sexual harassment is a bad person who is ignorant.
> 
> And the "cowboy" thing, really? Please calm down before you write.



Let's just start with the fact that I don't get too bent out of shape when guys like you, who argue for the forgiveness of guys who sexually harass women and for whom the women victims are some kind of tangential afterthought, say I "come off poorly." It warms my heart cockles and confirms I'm on the right side of the point at hand.

But it sure is reassuring that you want to couch how sexual harassment should be treated and forgiven based on geography rather than empathy for the victims. Real cogent stance to take there, bud. You see, because my point was that because I'm Canadian I'm immune to that whole blindly patriotic angle you were trotting out there. You actually went back to it for a second dip because you think it's a valid point! Yikes.

And yes, "cowboy" -- for the guy who practically planted hand on heart and said "Damn, I remember when 'Merica used ta give a feller a sec'n chance after he chased a woman around the room, all drunk'n like!" That was the most appropriate word for you given the forum's censors.

So now consider that your use of the term "witch hunt" necessarily has to mean something different than you intended since it actually end up FINDING ACTUAL WITCHES (metaphorically speaking)!

Maybe that will make you realize how deeply invested you are in your need to forgive these two guys rather than do what is appropriate. I mean ... wow ... a couple of weeks of public shaming on the Internet should be enough for what they dun gone and did, right? Because just what would women think of this situation if guys like you weren't around to tell them when the time came for everyone to just move on so these poor dudes can get on with their lives in peace?

So, short answer? No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me -- ever -- is a bad person or ignorant. But people who disagree with me because doing so means they are actually standing up to sideways wink at sexual harassment like it's just a couple of boys being boys and we should all move on? Oh yeah, that's something else entirely.


----------



## prosfilaes

MackMcMacky said:


> We used to believe in redemption in this country. A whole host of reforms were implemented based on the notion of charity, mercy, and rehabilitation. I guess a lot of people are over that.




Yep. We got a little tired of "charity" and "mercy" as applied to give certain people infinite opportunities to change, which they won't, because why will they if they have infinite opportunities. The idea of "charity" and "mercy" never seemed to apply to many other people, but if you were part of the in-crowd, oh brother, could you get away with stuff.


----------



## MackMcMacky

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Let's just start with the fact that I don't get too bent out of shape when guys like you, who argue for the forgiveness of guys who sexually harass women and for whom the women victims are some kind of tangential afterthought, say I "come off poorly." It warms my heart cockles and confirms I'm on the right side of the point at hand.
> 
> But it sure is reassuring that you want to couch how sexual harassment should be treated and forgiven based on geography rather than empathy for the victims. Real cogent stance to take there, bud. You see, because my point was that because I'm Canadian I'm immune to that whole blindly patriotic angle you were trotting out there. You actually went back to it for a second dip because you think it's a valid point! Yikes.
> 
> And yes, "cowboy" -- for the guy who practically planted hand on heart and said "Damn, I remember when 'Merica used ta give a feller a sec'n chance after he chased a woman around the room, all drunk'n like!" That was the most appropriate word for you given the forum's censors.
> 
> So now consider that your use of the term "witch hunt" necessarily has to mean something different than you intended since it actually end up FINDING ACTUAL WITCHES (metaphorically speaking)!
> 
> Maybe that will make you realize how deeply invested you are in your need to forgive these two guys rather than do what is appropriate. I mean ... wow ... a couple of weeks of public shaming on the Internet should be enough for what they dun gone and did, right? Because just what would women think of this situation if guys like you weren't around to tell them when the time came for everyone to just move on so these poor dudes can get on with their lives in peace?
> 
> So, short answer? No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me -- ever -- is a bad person or ignorant. But people who disagree with me because doing so means they are actually standing up to sideways wink at sexual harassment like it's just a couple of boys being boys and we should all move on? Oh yeah, that's something else entirely.



 Build that scarecrow so you can tear it down. You are trolling.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

MackMcMacky said:


> Build that scarecrow so you can tear it down. You are trolling.



Oh, you darling, precious boy.

It's so horrifying that you actually think that.


----------



## neobolts

The con organizer for NTRPGCon has updated his statement on his website. 



> Some additional info:
> 
> We have been contacted by an attorney, who has offered to write a policy for us.
> 
> We appreciate the support and will make the policy public as soon as possible.
> 
> So this policy will be without my personal comments on "common sense" and "idiots" that can't read etc. I prefer to piss of the trolls, but I'll let the attorney handle the policy this time.




What a class act. At the end of the day he's begrudgingly agreeing to address the issue via a lawyer, but would rather "piss of[sic] the trolls."

Source: http://ntrpgcon.com/forum/generaldiscussion-2018/222-policy-concerning-attendees-behavior


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

neobolts said:


> The con organizer for NTRPGCon has updated his statement on his website.
> 
> 
> 
> What a class act. At the end of the day he's begrudgingly agreeing to address the issue via a lawyer, but would rather "piss of[sic] the trolls."
> 
> Source: http://ntrpgcon.com/forum/generaldiscussion-2018/222-policy-concerning-attendees-behavior





This language interests me:


> We have been contacted by an attorney, who has offered to write a policy for us.




If they were “contacted” instead of seeking out a lawyer, I wonder how my colleague got wind of the issue.  Almost gotta be a gamer, because I haven’t seen a peep about this in the mainstream news.


----------



## evileeyore

Late to the post on the first two... but its' something i wanted to address...



kenmarable said:


> No, it doesn’t make many of us feel any better. Sure, they aren’t going to get burned at the stake, but most people aren’t satisfied with a bar set that low. “Better than history” is not the best we can do.



Actually, "better than history" is the best we can ever do.  All we can do is strive to be better than we were yesterday.




billd91 said:


> Yup, that's why I made sure to point out Paizo was ready to call the cops.



Neither here nor there, but I've been in altercations were someone was ready to call the cops because their feelings were hurt.  So... that's not a useful metric.

Granted in this case it may actually have been necessary, but I doubt we'll ever know.





mudbunny said:


> Have you...I mean...I don't know...have you missed the last couple of years??
> 
> READ ME



The US isn't a 'rape culture'.  For that i suggest you visit the middle east.  Where, you know, women get raped by tribal councils as punishjment for having already been raped.  You know, a culture that actually says "Yes, rape is okay!"

Not the US where even the _accusation_ of sexual misconduct results in job loss, social stigmatization, hounding by the 'news', etc...




And finally... some thing recent...


Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> "Witch hunt" ... yeah, funny how often that term gets brought up to defend people caught sexually harassing others.



MackMcMacky used the term "witch hunt" in connotation with Mentzer, who did not actually harass anyone.

Did Mentzer get into a stupid slapfight on Facebook with people where he was in the wrong?  Yes.  Old people who fail to adapt to the times often do act foolishly.

And note, Mentzer never once said "the victim deserved what happened".  He simply refused to understand that no, you can't always 'fight back' like he believes.  Is this a wrong-headed attitude?  Yes.

Would you feel better if someone pushed him down a set of stairs?  Or should he just never write again?  Do let us know your level of outrage.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

evileeyore said:


> And finally... some thing recent...
> 
> MackMcMacky used the term "witch hunt" in connotation with Mentzer, who did not actually harass anyone.
> 
> Did Mentzer get into a stupid slapfight on Facebook with people where he was in the wrong?  Yes.  Old people who fail to adapt to the times often do act foolishly.
> 
> And note, Mentzer never once said "the victim deserved what happened".  He simply refused to understand that no, you can't always 'fight back' like he believes.  Is this a wrong-headed attitude?  Yes.
> 
> Would you feel better if someone pushed him down a set of stairs?  Or should he just never write again?  Do let us know your level of outrage.



Oh, look! Someone else who is going to illustrate how poorly they understand what sexual harassment is!

Sexual harassment is unwanted sexual attention. Period. It doesn't require physical contact. The messages he was sending the recipient? Out of line and, yes, sexual harassment. Clearly not as bad as what Webb did, but something that was certainly out of line and unwanted, and yes, sexual in nature.

And Mentzer did not use the words "the victim deserved what happened," but that's not the sum total of what victim blaming is. In his defense, Mentzer tried shifting the blame of the incident on to other people, including the woman he sent the messages to. "Oh, I'm just being misunderstood by her, so it's her fault, really, for not getting my creepy, inappropriate old uncle routine" (and yes, to be clear, I'm paraphrasing here.) THAT sort of crap is also victim blaming, and Mentzer deployed it aplenty.

As for pushing him down the stairs or preventing him from writing again because you ... what? ... are trying to shame me for pointing out it's inappropriate to have Mentzer at a con as a special guest where the con runner doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with his "don't worry, I've got a gun if anyone gets out of line" sexual harassment policy? Wow. Have you been taking lessons from Mentzer? Nice attempt, but kind of heavy handed and clunky, though. I can only give it a 5 out of 10 because you stumbled on the dismount.


----------



## Morrus

Ravensworth said:


> You already allowed it on page one of this thread.
> For the life of me I cannot understand why you let the post where Victim is in quotation marks stay on the page. I believe it should have been removed and the person warned and in it's place you stating in red why it was removed not a warning that you will remove such posts in the future. That is a paper tiger.
> Sorry I have no time for people who threaten. Either you tolerate it or you don't. If you don't then remove the post and get out the ban hammer if your TOS or EULA is violated. If you are not going to do that stop posing!




1. Don’t argue with mods in-thread. The rules are very clear about this.

2. Don’t post in this thread again, please.


----------



## Morrus

I think we can close this one, too.


----------

