# Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done



## pogre

On a somewhat positive note - I do now notice when a convention does not have a clearly stated harassment policy. Awareness is a positive step - not enough for sure, but beyond where we were a short time ago.


----------



## Paraxis

Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment. 

You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try. 

The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.

[This is almost the exact same comment you made last time you were threadbanned for defending harassment at conventions. This time it's not just a threadban. - Morrus]


----------



## pogre

Paraxis, you are dead wrong. Assumptions like these are a big part of the problem.


----------



## Imaculata

Paraxis said:


> The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.




Well.... that didn't take long.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Paraxis said:


> Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.



The key element you're missing here is consent. Being attractive may increase the likelihood of consent but it by no means guarantees it.



> You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.



No, I don't think you have to be any of these things. 



> The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.



Good!


----------



## Bryan Quintero

Well said paraxis!


----------



## Particle_Man

There are ways of being a player that do not demean women.  Also, repeated "grunting noises" at the same woman is not being a player, it is being an .


----------



## Wiseblood

Since I do not know either party involved or the circumstances, I will not judge.  As for the policy, yeah that is a good one.

If I dress as the Highlander I expect too keep my head. If I dress as Black Widow I expect you to keep your hands to yourself.


----------



## EthanSental

Frustrating to hear of another issue.  Hopefully this comes to a resolution and the truth come soon out either way the show the harassment did or didn't happen.


----------



## Seule

I have a Chrome plugin that changes 'political correctness' to 'treating people with respect'. It seems particularly appropriate in this thread.


----------



## Sunseeker

And this is only what a well-recognizable company face is doing...


----------



## CleverNickName

Paraxis said:


> if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.



Citation needed.



Paraxis said:


> You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.



Citation needed.



Paraxis said:


> The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.



Citation needed.


----------



## pming

Hiya!

ALLEGATIONS. 

Just figured I'd toss that out for those to digest it a bit.



I've only been to one Con (in Calgary, Alberta...about 20 years ago). Suffice it to say I won't be going to any more of them anytime soon (I'm basically a straight white male who likes the President, overall, so I'm automatically evil, a sexual predator, guilty, misogynistic, racist, neo-Nazi, and a liar). Better safe than sorry, I say!.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## damned

If you approach another person and express some form of interest in them and they dont express a reciprocal interest then continuing with it is probably unwelcome. Sure thats not always true but if your continued approaches do any of the following then its very likely to be unwelcome at the least:
* isolating the individual
* using sexual innuendo or explicit sexual references
* behaving in a way that wouldnt be tolerated in a classroom
* touching
* leering
* talking sexually or negatively about them to others
and Im sure there are many more.

Men outnumber women significantly at many Conventions and that alone creates a situation where women can feel less safe. Dont let your behavior or the behavior of others at your table add further stress or discomfort to others.


----------



## Guang

Which weekly column was written by Fannon? I read the columns as they come out, but rarely pay attention to who wrote them.


----------



## jdrakeh

I just wanted to say "Thank you" for reporting on this and, also, for making the decision to discontinue Mr. Fannon's column in light of the serious nature of these accusations.


----------



## lyle.spade

Accusations.

Allegations.

All someone needs to do is make the right accusation, and the court of public opinion screams "guilty!" and punishment is handed down. What a clean and efficient form of 'justice.'

Think on that.


----------



## jimmifett

Allegations. Maybe true, maybe not. But much like the IT side of conventions where false attempts were made at Linus Torvalds and others to implicate and tear them down, NEVER let yourself be alone as an industry figure, always keep a wingman/woman or three around you. They can be witnesses to prevent false allegations by those with an agenda (as with Torvalds), or keep you from making an ass of yourself when you're drunk. If you find yourself alone with someone you barely know of the opposite gender, beat feet post haste. MeToo culture has gotten completely insane lately, where a mere allegation of impropriety from actual miscommunication can destroy you. Don't leave yourself open. Stay in a group. There are people who in this hobby and others will attempt to take down what they consider cultural or ideological opponents by any means necessary in their eyes.

Stay alert, don't be an ass, keep wingmen/women around. Flirting just isn't worth it anymore.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

One thing a local (only partially gaming-related) con does that I liked is that on the back of every badge are multiple “in case of harassment” contacts. Phone number, email, etc. And that’s in addition to multiple large posters of the anti-harassment policy hanging up around the venue (something Origins had last year, too, I might add).


----------



## Mark Craddock

Here is the disconnect for me. You say Fannon has "allegedly" harassed people. But you have, essentially, tried him in the court of public opinion for allegations and banned him from the site. Were his posts, that were merely compilations of his daily blog that popular? Until the situations are sorted out in their appropriate places, didn't this article create bias against Fannon?


----------



## lyle.spade

Mark Craddock said:


> Here is the disconnect for me. You say Fannon has "allegedly" harassed people. But you have, essentially, tried him in the court of public opinion for allegations and banned him from the site. Were his posts, that were merely compilations of his daily blog that popular? Until the situations are sorted out in their appropriate places, didn't this article create bias against Fannon?




The article didn't so much create bias against Fannon - it presented a conviction already decided.

The allegations may be entirely true and the perspective put forth in the article could be accurate. Or they could be false and the conclusions, therefore, wrong. Or it could be something in between. I've been the victim of false accusations of misconduct in a professional environment, by an anonymous accuser. Fortunately I worked with and for people who has enough self-discipline and respect for the rule of law (as a spirit and a process), who let the process play out...and the truth came out, eventually.

It was a rough few weeks, I can say, and so when I watch the pitchfork-wielding mob torching someone's reputation as a reflex, it really makes me sad, sick, and angry - and fearful for the future of our collection culture, if that's the sort of mindlessness we're happy to promote.

Again, could be right...could be wrong..could be something else...but a trial of some sort ought to precede sentencing and punishment, shouldn't it?


----------



## jimmifett

Mark Craddock said:


> Here is the disconnect for me. You say Fannon has "allegedly" harassed people. But you have, essentially, tried him in the court of public opinion for allegations and banned him from the site. Were his posts, that were merely compilations of his daily blog that popular? Until the situations are sorted out in their appropriate places, didn't this article create bias against Fannon?




Agreed, allegations are allegations. IMO, this article slips very close to libel. I see no indication that Fannon was actually kicked out of any venue. Morrus is allowed to do as he wishes with contributors, it's his site, but so far this article seems like tar and feathering. Especially when accusers are not identified. That is the high point of false allegations. At least in the good old USA, you have the right to confront your accusers, they don't get to hide behind a shield of anonymity and lob grenades with impunity, so I discount any remarks of theirs outright.

I don't know didly squat about Fannon, but I *DO* know that it's not supposed to be Listen and Believe, it's supposed to be Listen and *Investigate*.


----------



## Particle_Man

There are multiple allegations. It strains credibility that they all would be lying. There doesn’t seem to be a credible reason for them to lie while there is an obvious reason for him to lie. Plus it looks like at least two of them kept receipts, as the saying goes.

I believe them.


----------



## Mark Craddock

lyle.spade said:


> The article didn't so much create bias against Fannon - it presented a conviction already decided.




Which is confusing due to the word "Allegations" in the Article. ENWorld has every right to make whatever decision about their authors/contributors, based on whatever facts they find relevant. But this article confused me. Essentially, until whatever course the victims take on this is clear, I just don't see the need for the article, which basically comes down to the fact that allegations are presented against Fannon. Here are those that came forward, we are parting ways with Fannon and we are no longer sharing his weekly rundown of "reviews".

I think this would be news once the victims achieved whatever recourse they sought.


----------



## Mark Craddock

Particle_Man said:


> There are multiple allegations. It strains credibility that they all would be lying. There doesn’t seem to be a credible reason for them to lie while there is an obvious reason for him to lie. Plus it looks like at least one of them kept receipts, as the saying goes.
> 
> I believe them.




I'm not castigating the victims or defending Fannon. I'm saying this article skirts closely to libel and I'm uncertain why it was presented this way.


----------



## Doug McCrae

jimmifett said:


> There are people who in this hobby and others will attempt to take down what they consider cultural or ideological opponents by any means necessary in their eyes.



What's your evidence for this accusation?


----------



## doctorhook

I just realized exactly why I love ENWorld's "no politics" rule (and the high quality moderation team to enforce it): I find myself losing respect for certain commenters when they reveal political biases.

Anyway, this is obviously a complex problem that needs some nuance, but if we're helping fellow gamers avoid being harassed or assaulted, then I'm inclined to think things are moving in a positive direction.


----------



## Cameron Hays

Mark Craddock said:


> I think this would be news once the victims achieved whatever recourse they sought.




What recourse do you think is available to the victims?


----------



## ImportanceofHavens

As a woman who has been active in the RP community for over 25 years, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Helton that the issue is a serious problem in our community and needs to be addressed. I have been the victim of harassment and predatory behavior in this community. I am certain most women who read this article can say the same. We are here because we want to actively make the RP community a better place. Here in lies where I agree with Mr. Helton but his other discussions, being both irrelevant and slanderous, I disagree.His article is not an attempt to further a discussion about the predatory behavior in our community. To be clear, this article is a piece of writing with a weaker grasp on grammatical conventions than that of an average fourth grader, wherein the gross defamation of Mr. Fannon’s personal and professional character run rampant.  I am disappointed in ENWorld for going against the very tenets they hold to in their own policies:“These forums were created nearly twenty years ago, and at that time Eric Noah established three simple rules: keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it on topic. I later added keep it inclusive. Those rules are essentially the same rules we use today in the course of our duties.”  Mr. Helton and his editor have failed to do so. They have additionally failed to protect some of their sources, as Ms. Bulkeley’s testimony is falteringly recounted using names which should have been redacted. There is no journalism here. We need to have conversations about the actual problem. We do not need people like Mr. Helton “mansplaining” the issue without any thought as to how to actually make our community better. I am not about victim blaming. The simple fact, in this case, is there is no case. All of the comments I have read on this thread MISS THE POINT. Mr. Helton is hoping people will read his story and behave like people on the Internet are wont to behave – to not really pay attention, and yet feel some vague sort of injustice at a public figure.  We, as a community, are better than that. I hope, in retrospect, ENWorld recognizes the sincerity of its readership and redacts this story in full, replacing it with balanced, factual, and thoughtful journalism with the intent to help our community grow stronger.


----------



## Pauper

There's a curious facet of this discussion that I'm not entirely sure how to process.

First off, I don't agree that incidents of sexual harassment are evidence that current harassment policies are inadequate. Yes, Fannon's comments about the Gamers Giving event and his description of men who give offense without meaning to and perhaps even without understanding how offense could be taken can be interpreted as a somewhat sophisticated defense of his behavior, but the point is that Fannon is now 'on notice'. It becomes harder and harder to justify harassing behavior as 'not understanding how the behavior could offend' the more times Fannon must be informed that his behavior does in fact offend. In this sense, harassment policies are working -- the goal may be to eliminate harassment, but this isn't achieved in a sudden reduction of harassing behavior to zero, but in a gradual realization that harassing behavior, even if unintentional, is intolerable, and those who would engage in that behavior find it harder and harder to justify until they either stop behaving that way or are forced to remain apart from the community.

But for me, the real head-scratcher is that it's hard to really understand how far along that process of disincentivizing harassing behavior is coming along when we only ever hear about famous harassers, famous targets of harassment, or both. The middle-aged guy nobody's ever heard of hitting on the twenty-something catgirl who hasn't yet made a name for herself in the cosplay community -- how prevalent is that sort of harassment? I'm wiling to accept that, given the rise of harassment policies in fan conventions of all sorts that this sort of behavior is significantly reduced from the 'bad old days', but do we know for sure? Or have we simply pushed that behavior into the shadows, where only the isolated and vulnerable are subject to it? In this sense, even though I don't agree that harassment policies are currently ineffective, I admit I have no way of knowing if the policies are actually making the situation better, or simply restricting the number of people involved in this unwelcome behavior at conventions to those most able to rationalize it, and against those for whom that behavior would be most damaging.

Most importantly, is the prominent focus on harassment policy as enforced by convention organizers excusing the obligation of the community to aid in policing its own ranks? It's comforting to blame incomplete policies or inconsistent enforcement of those policies by organizers, but is it too comforting? Do we not let ourselves off the hook by assuming this is a problem that needs to be solved by 'the folks in charge' and that we're best off by not getting involved?

--
Pauper


----------



## Dire Bare

lyle.spade said:


> Accusations.
> 
> Allegations.
> 
> All someone needs to do is make the right accusation, and the court of public opinion screams "guilty!" and punishment is handed down. What a clean and efficient form of 'justice.'
> 
> Think on that.




Multiple allegations from women unconnected to each other. Clear pattern of behavior. Think on that.


----------



## Pauper

ImportanceofHavens said:


> As a woman who has been active in the RP community for over 25 years, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Helton that the issue is a serious problem in our community and needs to be addressed.





Here's an example of one of the things I'm talking about. This introduction seems reasonable, even sincere, and should be acceptable as a 'voice of reason' in the context of a community discussion. Yet the poster concludes:



> I hope, in retrospect, ENWorld recognizes the sincerity of its readership and redacts this story in full, replacing it with balanced, factual, and thoughtful journalism with the intent to help our community grow stronger.




As a member of the community, do I point out that this stance seems inconsistent with the poster's stated background and interest in the topic? Do I point out that the poster created 'her' account today, and that this post is the only post 'she' has made to ENWorld under this ID? Do I point out that I put 'her' in vagueness quotes because, while 'she' identifies 'herself' as female in 'her' introduction, 'she' does not reveal 'her' gender in 'her' user profile? Is it possible that this is merely a sockpuppet account, created to stir antagonism against the forum as punishment for serving as the dissemination point for the allegations against Fannon?

Does pointing all this out make me part of the problem, part of the solution, or simply a distraction from the real work of having the community conversation we need to have to reduce the prevalance of harassment in our community?

--
Pauper


----------



## Jester David

When you’re attracted to someone, you will see signs of consent that do not exist. Your subconscious will invent it out of casual behavior. Especially if, like many geeks, you have minimal social skills and may be awkward at approaching people. 
It’s totally acceptable to misread the situation and approach someone who is uninterested, and even come off too strong. 
Once.
Maybe even twice over a period of several years.

The behaviors described above shows a repeated and deliberate pattern, which makes it abuse. 
And when you continue to engage after receiving a firm “no” you have seriously crossed a line.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon

_Removed for reasons explained in a post at the end of this thread._


----------



## Dire Bare

doctorhook said:


> I just realized exactly why I love ENWorld's "no politics" rule (and the high quality moderation team to enforce it): I find myself losing respect for certain commenters when they reveal political biases.
> 
> Anyway, this is obviously a complex problem that needs some nuance, but if we're helping fellow gamers avoid being harassed or assaulted, then I'm inclined to think things are moving in a positive direction.




One thing I like about these threads is that I get to pad out my ignore list with all the troglodytes who somehow think Fannon's behavior is okay and that complaining about it is "political correctness".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

lyle.spade said:


> Accusations.
> 
> Allegations.
> 
> All someone needs to do is make the right accusation, and the court of public opinion screams "guilty!" and punishment is handed down. What a clean and efficient form of 'justice.'
> 
> Think on that.




False reporting of any crime is a justified concern.  False accusations can ruin lives.  See the Richard Jewel (Olympic bomber) case.  Even though he was exonerated, many people “didn’t get the memo.”

According to various studies, Only about 2%-10% of all sexual assault accusations reported to police turn out to be false. This is the same rate of false reporting as other types of violent crime.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077801210387747
https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
https://endsexualviolencect.org/resources/get-the-facts/national-stats/
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

And in addition to that, just as in any other case of false criminal accusations, false accusations of sex crimes- such as in the Tawana Brawley case- can result in jail time and big fines.

Think on that.


----------



## Dire Bare

ImportanceofHavens said:


> As a woman who has been active in the RP community for over 25 years, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Helton that the issue is a serious problem in our community and needs to be addressed. I have been the victim of harassment and predatory behavior in this community. I am certain most women who read this article can say the same. We are here because we want to actively make the RP community a better place. Here in lies where I agree with Mr. Helton but his other discussions, being both irrelevant and slanderous, I disagree.His article is not an attempt to further a discussion about the predatory behavior in our community. To be clear, this article is a piece of writing with a weaker grasp on grammatical conventions than that of an average fourth grader, wherein the gross defamation of Mr. Fannon’s personal and professional character run rampant.  I am disappointed in ENWorld for going against the very tenets they hold to in their own policies:“These forums were created nearly twenty years ago, and at that time Eric Noah established three simple rules: keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it on topic. I later added keep it inclusive. Those rules are essentially the same rules we use today in the course of our duties.”  Mr. Helton and his editor have failed to do so. They have additionally failed to protect some of their sources, as Ms. Bulkeley’s testimony is falteringly recounted using names which should have been redacted. There is no journalism here. We need to have conversations about the actual problem. We do not need people like Mr. Helton “mansplaining” the issue without any thought as to how to actually make our community better. I am not about victim blaming. The simple fact, in this case, is there is no case. All of the comments I have read on this thread MISS THE POINT. Mr. Helton is hoping people will read his story and behave like people on the Internet are wont to behave – to not really pay attention, and yet feel some vague sort of injustice at a public figure.  We, as a community, are better than that. I hope, in retrospect, ENWorld recognizes the sincerity of its readership and redacts this story in full, replacing it with balanced, factual, and thoughtful journalism with the intent to help our community grow stronger.




Not sure how seriously Helton or Morrus is going to take you with your hyperbole and post history of ONE.

You're right that Helton's post isn't about "furthering the conversation", at least that is not the main point. The point is to report on allegations against an industry professional, Sean Fannon, which Helton does rather well. Your comments about a lack of "journalism" in the post or on this site are hyperbolic, ignorant, and wrong. And, "mansplaining"? That made me spit my drink as I laughed.

Interesting how most of the folks defending Fannon and/or attacking Helton have a post history of 1 post, the very post in this thread. Or at least, most of the folks who aren't already on my ignore list.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.
> 
> I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing.




I can’t know if you’re sincere or not, but I DO appreciate you saying this.  If your words cause one person to reevaluate and improve their behavior, then that’s a valuable contribution.


----------



## Jester David

lyle.spade said:


> Accusations.
> 
> Allegations.
> 
> All someone needs to do is make the right accusation, and the court of public opinion screams "guilty!" and punishment is handed down. What a clean and efficient form of 'justice.'
> 
> Think on that.






Mark Craddock said:


> Here is the disconnect for me. You say Fannon has "allegedly" harassed people. But you have, essentially, tried him in the court of public opinion for allegations and banned him from the site. Were his posts, that were merely compilations of his daily blog that popular? Until the situations are sorted out in their appropriate places, didn't this article create bias against Fannon?



If multiple unrelated people told you someone had beaten them up at a convention, would you feel the same way?
If several individuals told you that someone in the industry had stolen from them at a Con, would you also want that person freely invited back to other Cons? Would you want to attend a Convention with them?
If numerous people reported that a individual flagrantly cheated at a game, would you want them at your table?

Think on that. 
Seriously. 
If I told you that while at GenCon 2014 I met Morrus at the Marriott bar and he was drunk, belligerent, and kicked the every living  out of me in a hallway. Would you respond with “_allegedly_”? Would you question the accusation?

(For the record, the above is totally not true.)


----------



## Dire Bare

Pauper said:


> There's a curious facet of this discussion that I'm not entirely sure how to process.
> 
> First off, I don't agree that incidents of sexual harassment are evidence that current harassment policies are inadequate. Yes, Fannon's comments about the Gamers Giving event and his description of men who give offense without meaning to and perhaps even without understanding how offense could be taken can be interpreted as a somewhat sophisticated defense of his behavior, but the point is that Fannon is now 'on notice'. It becomes harder and harder to justify harassing behavior as 'not understanding how the behavior could offend' the more times Fannon must be informed that his behavior does in fact offend. In this sense, harassment policies are working -- the goal may be to eliminate harassment, but this isn't achieved in a sudden reduction of harassing behavior to zero, but in a gradual realization that harassing behavior, even if unintentional, is intolerable, and those who would engage in that behavior find it harder and harder to justify until they either stop behaving that way or are forced to remain apart from the community.
> 
> But for me, the real head-scratcher is that it's hard to really understand how far along that process of disincentivizing harassing behavior is coming along when we only ever hear about famous harassers, famous targets of harassment, or both. The middle-aged guy nobody's ever heard of hitting on the twenty-something catgirl who hasn't yet made a name for herself in the cosplay community -- how prevalent is that sort of harassment? I'm wiling to accept that, given the rise of harassment policies in fan conventions of all sorts that this sort of behavior is significantly reduced from the 'bad old days', but do we know for sure? Or have we simply pushed that behavior into the shadows, where only the isolated and vulnerable are subject to it? In this sense, even though I don't agree that harassment policies are currently ineffective, I admit I have no way of knowing if the policies are actually making the situation better, or simply restricting the number of people involved in this unwelcome behavior at conventions to those most able to rationalize it, and against those for whom that behavior would be most damaging.
> 
> Most importantly, is the prominent focus on harassment policy as enforced by convention organizers excusing the obligation of the community to aid in policing its own ranks? It's comforting to blame incomplete policies or inconsistent enforcement of those policies by organizers, but is it too comforting? Do we not let ourselves off the hook by assuming this is a problem that needs to be solved by 'the folks in charge' and that we're best off by not getting involved?




Confirmed cases of individual harassment don't really speak towards the success of any given event's policies, but that isn't what this article is about, although some of Helton's past articles tackle this. And you are right, it's hard to gauge progress on this issue from reports of famous folks bad actions and the consequences. Sorry, but life ain't always easy! Should we not report on well-known bad actors? Why would we report on unknown bad actors, as individuals? Would you read an article describing ENWorld poster Dire Bare's history of harassing women? I'm nobody, the article would likely not do much to raise awareness of the issue.

And this article IS the community policing its ranks. Helton is a gaming columnist on one of the bigger community websites, discussing allegations against an industry professional and part of this very community! Many of us reading this thread are likely weighing whether or not to continue supporting Fannon's work in the industry, and/or attending events with Fannon as a guest of honor.

I'm completely comfortable with Helton's articles, this one and his earlier ones on the issue, and Morrus' decision to publish them.


----------



## Obryn

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> ALLEGATIONS.
> 
> Just figured I'd toss that out for those to digest it a bit.
> 
> I've only been to one Con (in Calgary, Alberta...about 20 years ago). Suffice it to say I won't be going to any more of them anytime soon (I'm basically a straight white male who likes the President, overall, so I'm automatically evil, a sexual predator, guilty, misogynistic, racist, neo-Nazi, and a liar). Better safe than sorry, I say!.
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming



I hope you can read this from all the way up there on that cross.

Also - this is life. Allegations are pretty much what we get. But apparently here there's multiple, unconnected allegations from multiple people who don't know each other, over many years, and some of those people have kept the receipts.

So.


----------



## jimmifett

Doug McCrae said:


> What's your evidence for this accusation?




Lets see, the frothing fanatics that got the tongue in cheek make fun of everyone involved card game based on gamergate removed from rpgnow for wrongthink.


Then there were more frothing fanatics that tried everything they could to get that villains to defeat supplement for a heroic game axed from rpg now even tho it was properly rated adult.

Apparently, some believe you cant vote with your own dollar.

There was the ludicrous teardown of the new vampire beta by frothing fanatics misconstruing it.

And, apparently now, some person that has a personal vendetta against Fannon.

Thats just the hobby game insustry.

In IT, you have a group that organized a plot to get linus torvalds alone so they could claim he sexually harassed.

In Comics, there was recently a group of industry insiders that plotted in a facebook group to corner an idealogical opponent of theres at a con and harass him in an attempt to make him get violent so they could have him arrested and labeled as having dangerous ptsd from his military service. The convo was leaked to him, he revealed it and they backed down and tried to cover tracks.

How’s that as a sample?


----------



## Dire Bare

Sean Patrick Fannon said:


> In Response to the EN World Piece Against Me




You've had some serious allegations leveled against you, and you certainly have a right to respond. You probably SHOULD respond. But you probably should have taken longer to think about HOW you respond.

It's easier for me to believe that you are refusing to take responsibility for your actions, than it is for me to believe that the multiple allegations in Helton's article represent a conspiracy of people who have inexplicable grudges against you.

Especially when you go on the attack against Helton (and by extension, Morrus) and the women who are making the allegations. You reference that others in the thread have brought up Helton's lack of "journalistic integrity", but the only one I read was a poorly worded, ranted screed that also went on the attack from a poster who created their account today and has a post count of "1". Granted, some folks on my ignore list might have also chimed in on your defense, although if so, they are on my ignore list because of past posts supporting this type of behavior or other bad actions.

Even if you turn up innocent of the allegations against you, I am not impressed with your post today, and I am not inclined to take your word on the conspiracy of allegations against you. If you are truly innocent, I hope you can clear the air and come through this intact. But you have yet to convince me. Not that I'm anyone important, just one representative of the community here on ENWorld.


----------



## Obryn

jimmifett said:


> Lets see, the frothing fanatics that got the tongue in cheek make fun of everyone involved card game based on gamergate removed from rpgnow for wrongthink.



Probably best not to host a game glorifying a hate group.



> Then there were more frothing fanatics that tried everything they could to get that villains to defeat supplement for a heroic game axed from rpg now even tho it was properly rated adult.



You mean Tournament of Rapists? That one?



> Apparently, some believe you cant vote with your own dollar.
> 
> There was the ludicrous teardown of the new vampire beta by frothing fanatics misconstruing it.



On the contrary, you can indeed vote with your dollar. I know I've done it.



> And, apparently now, some person that has a personal vendetta against Fannon.



Why do you think this is a personal vendetta?



> Thats just the hobby game insustry.



Cool, how many women have been harassed at cons and how many cosplayers have been groped?


----------



## Sunseeker

Why aren't these threads locked from the get-go?

Is there really anything to discuss?  If Sean did something bad, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it, and history shows us these discussions provide little help.  Several one-post accounts have registered _just_ to post in this thread.  From my experience on other forums, this is not a positive sign.

Sean himself has posted in this thread, for good or ill I do not know because quite frankly HOLY HANDGRENADES that is a big post and I didn't read it all.

If the Site Administration want to let this thread run on and on for another thousand pages, yeah okay I guess that's their call.  But I don't see the gain in it.


----------



## Obryn

Sean Patrick Fannon said:


> (snip)
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sean Patrick Fannon



Brother, you probably should have set the keyboard aside for a while before posting.


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer

As someone who tries to treat everyone with respect, I am happy to see the jerks of the world get called out for their behavior.  A lot of people will simply do whatever they can get away with because they have no inner moral or ethical compass.


----------



## jimmifett

Obryn said:


> Probably best not to host a game glorifying a hate group.




There you have it, gamergate is *not* a hate group, but because it opposes the ideals and yellow "journalism" that has been demonstrably proven to organize together across sites to determine narrative, they are attacked, maligned, and every effort made to ruin supporters.

Yes, ToR as I will refer to it as.

You may frequently vote with your dollar, and that is fantastic. But those that seek to prevent others from even having that choice is a cancer to any industry. As i've said before, they are just the 21st century Jack Chicks.

Why personal vendetta? Read Fannon's quite lengthy response and take from it what you will.

Your last point is a meaningless strawman, I wont bother to address.

Have a pleasant day.


----------



## Doug McCrae

jimmifett said:


> Lets see, the frothing fanatics that got the tongue in cheek make fun of everyone involved card game based on gamergate removed from rpgnow for wrongthink.
> 
> Then there were more frothing fanatics that tried everything they could to get that villains to defeat supplement for a heroic game axed from rpg now even tho it was properly rated adult.
> 
> Apparently, some believe you cant vote with your own dollar.
> 
> There was the ludicrous teardown of the new vampire beta by frothing fanatics misconstruing it.



But these are products, not people. If someone regards a product as offensive, in poor taste, or even harmful then it's perfectly legitimate to try to persuade a company not to sell it. That's the kind of thing that happens all the time. Your last example, as far as I can tell, merely references criticism of a product. These are not instances of attempts "to take down what they consider cultural or ideological opponents by any means necessary in their eyes."

"By any means necessary" suggests immoral or even illegal behaviour and these examples, again afaict, seem to be merely efforts to persuade.



> And, apparently now, some person that has a personal vendetta against Fannon.




But how do you know this? You yourself, upthread, called for us to always seek high standards of evidence before making serious accusations. It seems to me that you're not following your own advice.


----------



## Morrus

jimmifett said:


> At least in the good old USA, you have the right to confront your accusers, they don't get to hide behind a shield of anonymity and lob grenades with impunity, so I discount any remarks of theirs outright.




They're being hidden from *you* (the global you) for fear of online harassment. That does not mean they were anonymous.


----------



## RevTurkey

I don’t like this direction Enworld is taking...posting judgemental articles about people’s personal lives. It’s a minefield of finger pointing and encourages stupid comments from the ill-informed and could be very damaging to those involved. I think positive articles about treating fellow gamers respectfully would be better than all this naming and shaming. It lacks class. If somebody has alleged to have commited a crime then take it to the authorities and them investigate properly.


----------



## jimmifett

Doug McCrae said:


> But how do you know this? You yourself, upthread, called for us to always seek high standards of evidence before making serious accusations. It seems to me that you're not following your own advice.




You have me confused with someone else, I said listen and investigate, not high standards of evidence. And yes, this is a counter allegation by Fannon. Should it prove to be true, there you have it. If someone wishes to follow up and investigate with the board she seems to be on to see if this occurred, that might just put the issue to rest of a vengeful person.


----------



## Obryn

jimmifett said:


> There you have it, gamergate is *not* a hate group, but because it opposes the ideals and yellow "journalism" that has been demonstrably proven to organize together across sites to determine narrative, they are attacked, maligned, and every effort made to ruin supporters.



lol



> Yes, ToR as I will refer to it as.



Why? Because you don't feel great about going to bat for a product called Tournament of Rapists?



> You may frequently vote with your dollar, and that is fantastic. But those that seek to prevent others from even having that choice is a cancer to any industry. As i've said before, they are just the 21st century Jack Chicks.



That is uh ... not how anything works. At all.

You vote with your dollar by patronizing/not patronizing DTRPG. I do the same. Knowing this, DTRPG responded by contacting the author, who subsequently took it off of the site.

DTRPG is under no obligation to sell anything. _We_ decide whether or not to buy books from DTRPG.



> Your last point is a meaningless strawman, I wont bother to address.



Why not?


----------



## jimmifett

Morrus said:


> They're being hidden from *you* for fear of online harassment. That does not mean they were anonymous.




I do hope that you are not inferring that *I* am someone that goes around harassing people.

I will therefore take it as the *you* to instead mean *general public*, as a writing faux pas and we can all have a nice day.


----------



## zen_hydra

WT actual F!?  It boggles the mind to see all these, let's generously call them "people," coming out of the woodwork in support of misogyny. I just... I'm really disappointed.


----------



## Mark Craddock

Cameron Hays said:


> What recourse do you think is available to the victims?




That would be good to know. I'd like the article to inform of us of those options.


----------



## Doug McCrae

jimmifett said:


> You have me confused with someone else, I said listen and investigate, not high standards of evidence.



Isn't that what investigate means? To gather more evidence? We already have a certain amount of evidence. You deem it to be insufficient to change our attitude or behaviour towards Fannon, and thus before we can do so we need to gather more.



jimmifett said:


> so far this article seems like tar and feathering. Especially when accusers are not identified. That is the high point of false allegations. At least in the good old USA, you have the right to confront your accusers, they don't get to hide behind a shield of anonymity and lob grenades with impunity, so I discount any remarks of theirs outright.



What is this other than a call for higher standards of evidence? Namely the identities of the accusers.

You have been saying that these are merely allegations, that we need to investigate, and that accusers need to be identified. I would summarise all that as a call for higher standards of evidence.

And if such evidence is forthcoming, evidence that does substantially increase the likelihood Fannon has sexually harrassed women, then I'm sure you will change your opinion of him.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Discussion point:

Assuming the rate of vindictive "false reporting" for harassment runs at about 5% (which is a little lower than the average rate of criminal false accusation, but is a nice round number).

Is it better for 19 honest women who feel harassed to be harmed by having their stories disbelieved, or for 1 honest man to be destroyed by false accusations?

Apocryphal Benjamin Franklin and Rene Descarte quotes aside, that should be easy math for us nerds. "The needs of the many..."


----------



## Mark Craddock

Jester David said:


> If multiple unrelated people told you someone had beaten them up at a convention, would you feel the same way?
> If several individuals told you that someone in the industry had stolen from them at a Con, would you also want that person freely invited back to other Cons? Would you want to attend a Convention with them?
> If numerous people reported that a individual flagrantly cheated at a game, would you want them at your table?
> 
> Think on that.
> Seriously.
> If I told you that while at GenCon 2014 I met Morrus at the Marriott bar and he was drunk, belligerent, and kicked the every living  out of me in a hallway. Would you respond with “_allegedly_”? Would you question the accusation?
> 
> (For the record, the above is totally not true.)




The article's name is "Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done". The article uses the word "alleges". That's my beef. The article is playing both sides. It's skirting legal necessities, while casting judgement upon Fannon.

I don't know if Sean is guilty. I don't assume the victims were not harassed.

If you told me you were punched at a con in a conversation, I would most likely believe you. If I read it on the internet, I would only have the fact you presented to me. That is the issue here. Apparently, the goal of this article was to say Fannon's work would no longer appear here and several victims came forward with claims against him.

If you read on the internet that President Obama alleged raped a woman, would you want more than that?

I assume ENWorld holds some type of "journalistic integrity" for our hobby. We were presented with victims accounts and a lecture on being better behaved and given the announcement that ENWorld would no longer be a venue for Fannon--which easily appears like a judgement against him.

Part of the reason we have a real court system is that a second hand conversation or a blog post isn't full proof of a crime.

Look at it this way: I run games at my store. If I have a complaint, I investigate it and take quick action. I do not post on my store's FB page or website. I answer any questions from within the community.

ENWorld has every right to part ways with anyone they want. But I'm not sure that this warning about harassment in our community and treatment of Fannon won't leave them open to some form of libel from Fannon.


----------



## TreChriron

I believe we can talk about and change the sexual harassment culture in our industry and society at large.

It is also obvious to me that Mr. Helton is a fanatic who had made up his mind before ever reaching out to Mr. Fannon. I appreciate the need to illuminate these issues. But outside a trial, or investigation, or any other summary judgement, Mr. Helton has used ENWorld to assassinate the character of someone accused of misconduct. We are supposed to just trust Mr. Helton's sources? Where is the proof besides Mr. Helton's words?

The firing of Mr. Fannon was premature in my opinion.

You can believe victims, and hear them out, and still NOT leverage punitive damages against the accused. You could have just as easily created a discussion about behaviors, about teaching people (who obviously still don't get it) what is acceptable and not. Instead you called out names. You wanted to punish Mr. Fannon in your own public court, with you Mr. Helton sitting as judge and jury.

This was not a journalistic pursuit. It was a fevered emotional fanatical witch hunt perpetrated by a insincere provocateur attempting to establish himself as the "social justice warrior" supreme. Instead, Mr. Helton, you come off as a typical reality-TV sensationalist host.

Why in gods name Morrus is allowing this drivel to be posted on what used to be a good RPG news focused site is beyond me.

You two should be ashamed of yourselves.

I will be cancelling my support for this site, my EONS subscription and seriously questioning my use of WOIN as a publisher until the two of you apologize to Mr. Fannon, reinstate him as a columnist and get back to doing what ENWorld was designed to do.


----------



## DemoMonkey

_``fevered emotional fanatical witch hunt"__
_Sounds like a pretty good D&D session, actually.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> At least in the good old USA, you have the right to confront your accusers, they don't get to hide behind a shield of anonymity and lob grenades with impunity, so I discount any remarks of theirs outright.




Well...not exactly.  No right is absolute- rights are always in a balancing act with other rights & duties.

The right to confront your accusers exists, but it is limited by State & Federal Crime Victim Anonymity statutes, most of which include first and foremost victims of rape and sexual assault.  

Those statutes typically forbid the nonconsentual release of the alleged voctim’s identity as well as their past and present sexual history.  In addition, while they may be called on in court to testify and be cross-examined, most such statutes allow them to do so with an alias like “John/Jane Doe”.  In extreme cases, other measures may be taken.


----------



## jdrakeh

I love the chorus of ""Harassment hasn't occurred until proven before a court of law and these women are all dirty, dirty, liars until a judge says otherwise!" battle cry of sexual harassment champions here. This is why I don't post on ENWorld very much. If you think being a SJW is awful, being a die hard champion for sexual harassment and he-man woman-hater is magnitudes worse.


----------



## Obryn

Mark Craddock said:


> Part of the reason we have a real court system is that a second hand conversation or a blog post isn't full proof of a crime.



This isn't the court system, and the level of proof required by a criminal court is simply not tenable as a standard for day to day living.


----------



## scottaroberts

SPF wrote:
"...However, as I've made it clear above, I was also deeply concerned about how any of my past behaviors might have created exactly the wrong kinds of experiences for others in my community. I was also concerned about the fact that Helton had, thus far, made no attempt to discuss the situation with me..."

Let's look at this.  Helton clearly had no obstacles to getting in touch with Fannon before submitting his column--he'd not only talked to the accusers, he'd a long-standing contact with Fannon dating at least back to his 2013 "Dorkland! Roundtable" video series (where he interviewed the man for more than an hour.)  Why didn't he, and why did his editor have to do so?

Several folk: variations on, "you should've waited and thought about your response more."
This might be a good suggestion were this a legal case, but it's not.  Would you have rather seen some sort of polished PR response?  I'm sure that would've sounded much better--and pilloried for being too polished and less sincere.

SPF:
"Because I have acted inappropriately, many times, in my past. I've leered, male gaze extant, and paid overly-familiar compliments. I've flirted with folks who were just there to be a part of things, not expecting or wanting to be flirted with. I've used my position of privilege to intrude into the emotional and personal space of women I was attracted to. I've had things to say about their appearance, and simply assumed it was OK. 

I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.

I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing."

Is this enough?  Only the reader can determine that, but allow me to ask you: what WOULD be enough, if not this?  For quite a while now, I've witnessed Sean writing about the #metoo movement from a position basically reflecting the above--a desire for change and improvement; an acknowledgement and apology for past behaviors, a general understanding of what has been wrong and a true desire to advocate and work for change.

What would YOU write, what would you say, were the situation reversed?  What would be enough?  Or is there no solution whatsoever that is acceptable; should all of those ever accused slink off into the darkness with nothing but a confession of guilt, never to return?

Is it not acceptable whatsoever to attempt to provide context?  Is any provision of context immediately suspect? What suffices to prove Fannon's allegations that some of the accusations were made with malice aforethought?  Those who'd claim the accusers have no reason to "come forward" are making undue presumptions, as anyone of any gender can attest regarding the messiness of the ending of some relationships.  We don't know the motivations of the accusers even if the alleged behavior occurred.  It may very well be that at the time--if it did occur as presented--it was viewed as, at least, par for the course if not accepted.  If so, Fannon's behavior in recent times,  unmotivated by a desire to "clear his name" or be presented as "a good guy" or "a martyr" should adequately serve to display a true change of heart and acceptance of his flaws.  He's been a voice for change and moving forward with awareness and now he's apparently part of the problem.

I ask again: how would YOU reply in a way that would be "acceptable", and by what standard would it be enough?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Mark Craddock said:


> Look at it this way: I run games at my store. If I have a complaint, I investigate it and take quick action. I do not post on my store's FB page or website. I answer any questions from within the community.



If you possess information that will help individuals protect themselves from sexual harrassment, don't you have a moral duty not to withhold it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

scottaroberts, that post is unreadable on a black background.  Check your color editing tags.


----------



## timbannock

shidaku said:


> Why aren't these threads locked from the get-go?
> 
> Is there really anything to discuss?  If Sean did something bad, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it, and history shows us these discussions provide little help.  Several one-post accounts have registered _just_ to post in this thread.  From my experience on other forums, this is not a positive sign.
> 
> Sean himself has posted in this thread, for good or ill I do not know because quite frankly HOLY HANDGRENADES that is a big post and I didn't read it all.
> 
> If the Site Administration want to let this thread run on and on for another thousand pages, yeah okay I guess that's their call.  But I don't see the gain in it.




I suspect it's the only way for Sean to publicly defend himself in a venue that's directly connected to the article. I imagine a follow-up article would also be good, but an issue of internet journalism is that a person can find one article that ranks well in searches years later and not a follow-up, and that's why some people who've been proven innocent of a thing still suffer under the shadow of guilt. Thanks a lot, Google!! ;-P

Only allowing moderators to post a reply from Sean or someone directly involved is probably the best way to go, IMHO, but then the chances of censoring those replies becomes even easier. I dunno.


----------



## Gradine

Well, this thread has certainly gone in a predictable direction. Except Fannon's mammoth of an ill-advised response, the ending of which would have seemed like a much more sincere, full-throated endorsement of the movement against sexual harassment and a desire to learn and grow from the experience, had it not been immediately preceded by the personal attacks that it was. That was a bit unexpected.

Amusingly enough; Fannon's positioning himself as a supporter of #TimesUp makes me even more likely to disbelieve the narrative that multiple women, unconnected to each other, would make similar accusations up about him over the course of years as some attempt at "character assassination" by radical feminist ideologues; he clearly wants us to believe he's an ally, which begs the question for those pushing this narrative then: why? What actions, behaviors, or espoused ideologies would have predicated this massive conspiracy against him?

The way some people bend over backwards and twist their brain in knots in order to believe one man against _multiple_ female accusers seriously boggles my mind.

And now a message for the fence-sitters. The "let's wait and see" folks. The "I don't know either him or the _multiple accusers and witnesses_ against him, so I guess I'll just ignore all of the evidence on either side and go on with my day" individuals. The "what happened to innocent until proven guilty" crowd.

Hey, friends. I see you there. I know you mean well. But I've got some unfortunate news for you.

There is no fence.

There are two potential outcomes to accusations such as these. (1) Something happens as a result; i.e. Fannon faces consequences for his actions (based, ideally, on a number of different circumstances, but especially on the sincerity of his contrition and demonstration of better behavior); or (2) Nothing happens; the status quo remains; i.e, Fannon faces no consequences.

You do not get to not choose a side. You are either for the status quo, which tacitly means you believe the women making accusations are lying (or, at the very least, you believe that we should base our reaction _as if_ we believed they were lying, which is a difference without a distinction if you ask me); or you believe they are telling the truth, at least in part if not in full, which means that there should be _some_ consequences for Fannon's behavior.

Again, the conversation about what those consequences should be is fairly nuanced and depends on a lot of different factors, and there's a lot of middle ground there.

But in the "who do you believe" conservation, there really isn't. At best, this is a world where justice simply cannot be achieved, at least not without a burden of evidence that appears even strong than what is required for even a criminal conviction. That's not a world anybody should want to live in.


----------



## DemoMonkey

There are really only 3 choices:

1) Always believe the accusers. 
*Result:* Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.

2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. 
*Result*: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.

3) Refuse to pass judgement at all. 
*Result*: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.

So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the world and what price you are willing to pay for it.


----------



## QuestioningAuthority

This is hardly investigative. There was no mention of the fact that Diane Bulkeley's witness is facing disciplinary action within the Gamers Giving board for their actions against Fannon (including creating a false story of harassment), nor the fact that Diane Bulkeley had actively been seeking a romantic relationship with him (per various witnesses) and had him over at her house and celebrated his DMing a game for her after the supposed incident. 


Not only that, you aren't furthering the conversation so much as going after one individual in the culture. You didn't fully investigate your main incident (just went off of "there are many witnesses" without providing statements from any), you haven't listen any other ongoing issues (to which there are many in the gaming community), and you haven't helped with the conversation. You have lampooned one individual with a "juicy story" and claimed that you are helping women and men feel free to speak out and seek help.


----------



## Doug McCrae

[MENTION=6803203]DemoMonkey[/MENTION] There's also the question of quantity of evidence. For me, multiple independent allegations easily crosses my threshold for everyday belief. I believe lots of other things on far less evidence. Sadly, it's not as if sexual harassment is an extraordinary or unlikely occurrence in our society.


----------



## Morrus

A matter of clarity: Sean wasn’t fired.

Sean quit posting his column of his own volition three weeks before this article was posted, when he found out it was being worked on. Totally understandable. 

I did confirm with him a week or so ago that that was appropriate, but it’s not like I was in any position to make that decision. 

As a further point of clarification, his column was a voluntary reposting of his week’s Picks of the Day on his own website. He wasn’t under contract, and he wasn’t paid for it, because it wasn’t unique content. You can still find his column on social media, his website, and other places he posts it. 

Just so we’re all on the same page.


----------



## Zak S

Sean Patrick Fannon has objectively, provably and repeatedly harassed people online so it's not a surprise he did it irl too.

He's openly said he gets emotional and does things he knows he shouldn't.


----------



## Caliban

DemoMonkey said:


> There are really only 3 choices:
> 
> 1) Always believe the accusers.
> *Result:* Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.
> 
> 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.
> *Result*: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.
> 
> 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all.
> *Result*: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.
> 
> So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the world and what price you are willing to pay for it.




Ah, the fallacy of the false dilemma.    Presenting a few select options as if they are the only possible choices.  

Sad.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? Peter Parker saying "I don't want to go." sad? What level of sad are we talking here?

And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary.

However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Caliban

DemoMonkey said:


> Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? Peter Parker saying "I don't want to go." sad? What level of sad are we talking here?
> 
> And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary.
> 
> However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened.




Your position is sadly lacking in both personal judgement and common sense.   

"Always believe them or never believe them. That's it, nothing else!" 

Obviously bullcrap and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it. 

Option 3:  Use a little intelligence an look at the history of the allegations, the accuser, and the accused.   Actually consider it and judge each case on it's own merits instead of blindly backing one side or the other. 

A single incident several years ago with the accusation based solely on hearsay?  I'm not going to put much stock in it. 

A recent incident, with multiple eye witnesses and recordings from cameras?   I'm much more inclined to believe it, while allowing for the possibility of a serious misunderstanding.

Multiple incidents, over several years, with several different people coming forward to confirm them?  I'm much more likely to believe that.   

Does the incident consist of verbal harassment (bad, but one or two incidents could possibly be written off as poor judgement or drunken mistakes - several incidents not so much) - or did it involve stalking and/or physical harassment?   That's something to be taken very seriously and should be reported to the authorities. 

Usually by the time something like this gets reported as news or goes viral on media, there's a clear pattern emerging with multiple incidents - or one egregious incident with video and eye witnesses.    But sometimes it's just hearsay and you should reserve judgement until more facts come to light.


----------



## Mildred Cady

It’s amazing* that understanding the word “no” requires an advanced level of social skill. 

*sarcasm


----------



## yardornate

The most stunning and saddening part of these comments is the lack of expressed interest or concern for those women who have indicated they've been harassed. They are the parties that have been hurt and wronged in this experience.

Those women have a right to express their stories, and it's my hope that Fannon has expressed an interest in finding the opportunity to directly address those three individuals in a thoughtful, mindful, and supportive way that validates their experiences. Not just reflection, not just for show, but because those women's experiences matter.

The other odd thing here is - Why did EN-World not just remove Fannon? Instead they took this "opportunity" to use their very well known platform to "address sexual harassment" while also sharing a very personal and public account of one of their contributors (syndicated or original content aside). What was the motive here on EN World's part? I am (obviously) not a regular to this site, but this feels like an intentional choice. Was this an opportunity to look like a thoughtful site rooting out harassment? Or was it to help distance EN World from a very unpleasant situation?

This article in no way addresses the experience of women at conventions and how to improve that unfortunate culture - which is the sort of thing I'd hope to see. It's about Fannon and EN World, with what this reader feels is a veil of "oh by the way, some gals were upset."


----------



## DemoMonkey

Thank you for explaining.

I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers *unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof*.

Such as, as you say,  multiple eye-witnesses and video.


----------



## Morrus

There’s at least one unseemly IP address match in this thread with a brand new account. I won’t out it here, but be aware that sock puppet accounts can be plainly visible to site admins.


----------



## Caliban

DemoMonkey said:


> Thank you for explaining.
> 
> I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers *unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof*.
> 
> Such as, as you say,  multiple eye-witnesses and video.




Nope.  "incontrovertible" is a ridiculous requirement for something outside a court of law.   Especially things that will always be reported second and third hand, and learned about days, weeks, or months after the fact. 

  And some things will always have a level of uncertainty about them, and you just have to use your best judgement based on your impressions of the people involved, and the known facts about the incident(s).   

I stand by my statement.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Ah. So you consider "incontrovertible" the sticking point?

I'm happy to forego that particular word; it isn't the linch-pin of my point. 

Edit: "court-quality" is.

Edit edit: lynchpin? linchpin? lynch-pin?


----------



## Particle_Man

So Fannon decided to name his accusers?


----------



## zen_hydra

QuestioningAuthority said:


> This is hardly investigative. There was no mention of the fact that Diane Bulkeley's witness is facing disciplinary action within the Gamers Giving board for their actions against Fannon (including creating a false story of harassment), nor the fact that Diane Bulkeley had actively been seeking a romantic relationship with him (per various witnesses) and had him over at her house and celebrated his DMing a game for her after the supposed incident.
> 
> 
> Not only that, you aren't furthering the conversation so much as going after one individual in the culture. You didn't fully investigate your main incident (just went off of "there are many witnesses" without providing statements from any), you haven't listen any other ongoing issues (to which there are many in the gaming community), and you haven't helped with the conversation. You have lampooned one individual with a "juicy story" and claimed that you are helping women and men feel free to speak out and seek help.




Another sock-puppet...yay...


----------



## Jester David

Mark Craddock said:


> The article's name is "Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done". The article uses the word "alleges". That's my beef. The article is playing both sides. It's skirting legal necessities, while casting judgement upon Fannon.



The article is serving multiple masters.
It’s reporting on the news of a figure in gaming being accused. It’s informing he will no longer be published on ENWorld. It’s requesting other victims come forward, for both him and other figures. It’s pointing out how gaming conventions still have work to do in terms of combating harassment. 

This does make it a bit of a muddle with a conflicted tone. 
But critiquing the article itself is entirely different than its subject. 



Mark Craddock said:


> If you told me you were punched at a con in a conversation, I would most likely believe you. If I read it on the internet, I would only have the fact you presented to me. That is the issue here. Apparently, the goal of this article was to say Fannon's work would no longer appear here and several victims came forward with claims against him.



Is you point that you only believe people directly? 
So if I told you I was assaulted you would believe me. But if someone I told directly instead told you that would make it unbelievable? Wouldn't it depend entirely on WHO told you what I said. 

As such, your use of “read on the internet” is overly broad and thus problematic. 
There is a world of difference from "read on 4chan" and "read on nytimes.com" 



Mark Craddock said:


> If you read on the internet that President Obama alleged raped a woman, would you want more than that?



If I read it from a reliable source, I would have doubts, but not many. If I read it from a gossip site, then probably not. Because reliable sources fact check. They have reputations to maintain and are only as trusted as their credibility, and have to issue retractions when they print mistakes. 

(However… even if a less reputable site, if multiple sources had all said the same thing I would want that investigated.)



Mark Craddock said:


> I assume ENWorld holds some type of "journalistic integrity" for our hobby. We were presented with victims accounts and a lecture on being better behaved and given the announcement that ENWorld would no longer be a venue for Fannon--which easily appears like a judgement against him.



Right. See above at the problematic nature of this article. 
None of which has any bearing on the strength or value of the accusations. 



Mark Craddock said:


> Part of the reason we have a real court system is that a second hand conversation or a blog post isn't full proof of a crime.



Agreed. 
Which is why he isn't being sentenced to jail for accusations. 

That doesn't mean people who are inappropriate but don't cross the line into committing an illegal act shouldn't face any consequences for their actions. 
If someone is a jerk or a creep there should be repercussions. Not continuing to offer them work is one.



Mark Craddock said:


> Look at it this way: I run games at my store. If I have a complaint, I investigate it and take quick action. I do not post on my store's FB page or website. I answer any questions from within the community.



That's nice. How do you find out if there are other people with complaints then? Won't they just continue to remain silent? 
That isn't fixing the problem. That's ignoring the problem and assuming it will fix itself. 


Now, perhaps by "investigate" perhaps you mean interview and ask others if they experienced behaviour without being specific. That's great. 
How would you propose to do that for tens of thousands of convention goers spread out over three continents? 
There's no way other than to go public and ask for people to come forward. 



Mark Craddock said:


> ENWorld has every right to part ways with anyone they want. But I'm not sure that this warning about harassment in our community and treatment of Fannon won't leave them open to some form of libel from Fannon.



Which is why they make use of that "allegedly" term in the article. Which, as you state at the beginning of your post, is "your beef". 
You criticize them for "skirting legal necessities" and then say that they might "leave them open to some form of libel". 

So, what should they have done? 
Stopped publishing but not reported on the accusations? (And thus not request that other victims come forward or informed smaller cons/ publishers of the accusations.)
Reported but continued to let him write for ENWorld? 
Ignored the whole matter and hope it gets resolved by the conventions? 

What was the best course of action?


----------



## Caliban

DemoMonkey said:


> Ah. So you consider "incontrovertible" the sticking point?
> 
> I'm happy to forego that particular word; it isn't the linch-pin of my point.
> 
> Edit: "court-quality" is.
> 
> Edit edit: lynchpin? linchpin? lynch-pin?




Nope.  "Court quality" is ridiculous as well.   You aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying, so I'm done with this.   

Your position is obviously flawed and doesn't apply to me (since I haven't believed 100% of the accusers or the accused in past incidents) and let's just leave it at that.


----------



## TreChriron

Mildred Cady said:


> It’s amazing* that understanding the word “no” requires an advanced level of social skill.
> 
> *sarcasm




It doesn't. But apparently some men don't understand boundaries. So - discussions about what is appropriate and what is NOT are good. Policies posted at the front of cons, game stores, and playing spaces is good. Those stickers or buttons that help identify who wants to chat and who wants to left alone are excellent. Talking before you play a game and letting players know they can pass you a note or pull up an X-card and you will accomodate them, no questions asked, is good.

Creating an industry blacklist on ENWorld, with Chris Helton as the grand inquisitor is a fool's errand at best. Has there ever been a point in history where a fanatic goes on a crusade and it turns out justice was served? I can't think of one.

You can believe and trust victims and NOT punish the accused. For example, here's what I would consider journalistic integrity.

1) You find out yet another story of harassment.
2) You pen up an article pointing out bad behavior, some suggestions and solutions for addressing it.
3) You provide hotline information for victims and encourage them to report it and/or seek help.
4) You spark a conversation on an RPG news site, around the subject to bring more awareness to it.
5) You share the stories of victims, in a context that is relatable to ANYONE reading it. Including creepy people who perpetrate such behavior. Because inspiring EMPATHY is likely one of the best ways to inspire behavior changes.

You don't pen up an assassination piece on an industry person so you can feel emotionally fulfilled that you exacted your delicious revenge against "all those misogynist perverts who did the bad things".

How do I know $5 works? Because, it worked on me. I was raised in a patriarchal traditional household. I had some deep ingrained mysoginst outlooks. I made jokes and light of women's issues.

Then, in the course of following alt pinup girls on the InterTubes, I had the occasion to read feminist blogs by said girls. They recounted various stories, and fears and troubles dealing with this specific subject.

And I empathized with them. All the admonishments, and lectures and spittle had little effect on my  attitude. Until I put myself in their shoes. It made me sick to my stomach. I realized I was being a creep, and recognized my problematic behaviors.

And I fixed them.

I am not a creep. I don't treat women like sex objects, or expect them to sleep with me because I had the courage to say hi to them, or make comments about their body in public in a desperate maligned attempt to garner sexual affection.

Even as a feminist, as a supporter of equal rights for everyone - I abhor this approach. I abhor the Witch Hunt. It accomplishes NOTHING. All Chris has managed to do is  all over Sean's reputation. He exacted revenge. Plain and simple. Judge, jury and executioner.

The only way to fix this problem is to call it out WHEN IT HAPPENS. To support the women in our hobby at those moments. To stand up to  predatory behavior IN THE MOMENT. Where were these woman's allies when they were being harrassed?

It's really easy to do what Chris is doing. It's much harder to actually stand up, in the moment, and defend what you believe in. We don't need Chris Helton Grand Inquisitor to build us a blacklist of witches to burn.

We need men to step up and start behaving like decent human beings AND stand up for women when they are being treated like  by indecent human beings.

Don't buy into this article's . It has little to do with anything but Chris Helton's personal pursuit of some forgiveness from the frothing masses he's desperately trying to impress.


----------



## TreChriron

yardornate said:


> The most stunning and saddening part of these comments is the lack of expressed interest or concern for those women who have indicated they've been harassed. They are the parties that have been hurt and wronged in this experience. ...




Well, now that we've burned Sean Patrick Fannon at the stake, justice has been served!! (/sarcasm).

I would be curious to know, if at least this article has brought these women some closure? Did this punishment make them feel better?

Maybe Chris Helton can interview them and post an "after action report" to prop up his new career as The Grand Inquisitor of Sexual Harassment.


----------



## Gammadoodler

DemoMonkey said:


> Thank you for explaining.
> 
> I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers *unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof*.
> 
> Such as, as you say,  multiple eye-witnesses and video.




It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe _*any*_ accusation from _*any*_ accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior _and you would have to believe me. _Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense.


----------



## DemoMonkey

That's an interesting corner case. If someone accused you of harrassment, under Option 1) would you have to assume you are yourself guilty?

I would say yes; because harassment is not defined by any particular action but by whether the person aggrieved _feels _they were harassed. 

So to answer "By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me." my answer would be: yes, I believe you, and I apologize unreservedly for my behaviour.

Of course I'm Canadian, so that would probably be my response in most situations anyway.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

This is all word against word, there is no reason why anyone harassed in the last 20 years has had any reason to feel that they could not go to the police. If you were harassed them go to the authorities. If it was not important enough to you to take the proper steps to protect yourself and to protect others from possible future acts of said person then should it really be discussed here? Because at this point, well after the fact no one here has a single fact and all that happens is character assassination against the alleged perpetrator and of the alleged victim, and neither action does anyone any good.

As a second point do we need "policies" in place that basically say you cannot break the law at our convention? Looking at the Gen Con policy all I see is an announcement that says "be mature and adult and dont break the law".


----------



## yardornate

> I would be curious to know, if at least this article has brought these women some closure?




Those women shared their stories for a reason, and in the interest of protecting their own anonymity, I doubt we'll ever hear them express their opinions and feelings on this thread or on Fannon's responses.  None of these posts seem to indicate that he's had the opportunity to actually speak to those women and address their concerns/own his part about what occurred.  

I can only hope that behind the scenes they are actually addressing this as individuals and encouraging a culture of communication - even when it's about a profoundly unpleasant and uncomfortable topic.


----------



## Gradine

Gammadoodler said:


> It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe _*any*_ accusation from _*any*_ accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior _and you would have to believe me. _Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense.




I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that [MENTION=6803203]DemoMonkey[/MENTION] has set up is that he's presenting it as a universal; as if you have to either *always* believe the accusers or *always* believe the accused. This struck me as the core of [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION]'s concern also.

Where DemoMonkey has the right of it is that the dichotomy *is* true for every *individual* event. Which isn't to say that everyone _literally_ is choosing to either believe the accusers or believe the accused. But that, in regards to outcomes, at least in the sense that there should be any consequences at all or not, there are really only two sides. So maybe the dichotomy isn't so much about _belief_ as it is about _choosing a side._ When there are only two outcomes, both of which are mutually exclusive to each other, there is no ability to "not choose a side". Not choosing a side is, in essence, choosing the side of status quo. In this case, that means choosing the side of the accused. 

Choosing to disbelieve both sides, as long as one is capable of overcoming the severe cognitive dissonance required to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs (stranger things have happened), is choosing the side of the accused. Saying that you believe the accusers but still don't think there should be consequences is choosing the side of the accused. Refusing to engage with the conversation _at all_ is choosing the side of the accused.

I'm not saying this necessarily as a value statement (though I do clearly have a bias here); simply to be informational. If anyone in this thread believes that there shouldn't be any consequences for the accused, but they also do not think they are taking the side of the accused, they are, sadly, mistaken.


----------



## kenmarable

TreChriron said:


> Has there ever been a point in history where a fanatic goes on a crusade and it turns out justice was served? I can't think of one.




Minor point - but I absolutely can think of many. In fact, nearly every instance of society changing and justice being done were initially lead by people many called fanatics. Of course, now in hindsight we'd say "Oh, _they_ weren't fanatics." but the vast majority of the time, who we call a fanatic often has far less to do with any fanaticism and more to do with how much we happen agree with them.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Jester David said:


> snip ...
> 
> Now, perhaps by "investigate" perhaps you mean interview and ask others if they experienced behaviour without being specific. That's great.
> How would you propose to do that for tens of thousands of convention goers spread out over three continents?
> There's no way other than to go public and ask for people to come forward.
> 
> ....



This bit caused me to consider that it would be in the interest of convention organisers to club together and reach to a major university sociology department and actually organise an anonymous survey of female con goers to ask this very question. Rather than have accusations dripping out and reacting behind the curve all the time. Get some data to determine how big the issue is and how prevalent.

Waiting for data is no excuse for not acting but there is an advantage of getting data because if reportage of harassment is anything like reporting to police of actual sexual assault then this is only the tip of the iceberg and the actual incidents of harassment is much larger than reported (which is I suspect is the case).


----------



## TreChriron

yardornate said:


> ...
> 
> I can only hope that behind the scenes they are actually addressing this as individuals and encouraging a culture of communication - even when it's about a profoundly unpleasant and uncomfortable topic.




I hope so too. I feel like instead of the tabloid attention-grabbing sensationalism this article was trying to nab, that the better solution here would have to been to facilitate that conversation. Perhaps impart some learning on the individual. It hardly needed to be dragged out into the public so ENWorld could get a few more clicks.  What could have been an excellent teaching moment for the hobby is now just an absurd parody of "justice". What a shame.


----------



## uniweeb71

This isn't journalism and isn't in keeping with the standards I've come to expect from this site. Poor form.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

JacktheRabbit said:


> This is all word against word, there is no reason why anyone harassed in the last 20 years has had any reason to feel that they could not go to the police. If you were harassed them go to the authorities. If it was not important enough to you to take the proper steps to protect yourself and to protect others from possible future acts of said person then should it really be discussed here? Because at this point, well after the fact no one here has a single fact and all that happens is character assassination against the alleged perpetrator and of the alleged victim, and neither action does anyone any good.
> 
> As a second point do we need "policies" in place that basically say you cannot break the law at our convention? Looking at the Gen Con policy all I see is an announcement that says "be mature and adult and dont break the law".



Starting with your second point, we do need policies and any convention nowadays should have somebody and a place a booth or something where should thing can be reported and somebody there with a clear procedure as to how to handle a complaint. Why because we are living in a world that increasingly will not put up with things as they were. 

Now according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2016 only 23% or rape and sexual assault crimes were reported to the authorities https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16_sum.pdf and as far as I know that reporting average is pretty typical of the Western world. So if the reporting rate is so low for serious personal crimes against women, how likely are women to report harassment? 

So the second reason for clear policies and reporting lines is so women believe they can make such a report and that they will be treated seriously and with respect.


----------



## billd91

uniweeb71 said:


> This isn't journalism and isn't in keeping with the standards I've come to expect from this site. Poor form.




Huh. Join date of today. Post count 1. Using a smokescreen of criticizing "journalism" to attack the article outing a misbehaving man. I'm guessing sock puppet who probably thinks GamerGaters weren't misogynists.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Gradine said:


> I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that @_*DemoMonkey*_ has set up is that he's presenting it as a universal; as if you have to either *always* believe the accusers or *always* believe the accused. This struck me as the core of @_*Caliban*_'s concern also.
> 
> Where DemoMonkey has the right of it is that the dichotomy *is* true for every *individual* event. Which isn't to say that everyone _literally_ is choosing to either believe the accusers or believe the accused. But that, in regards to outcomes, at least in the sense that there should be any consequences at all or not, there are really only two sides. So maybe the dichotomy isn't so much about _belief_ as it is about _choosing a side._ When there are only two outcomes, both of which are mutually exclusive to each other, there is no ability to "not choose a side". Not choosing a side is, in essence, choosing the side of status quo. In this case, that means choosing the side of the accused.
> 
> Choosing to disbelieve both sides, as long as one is capable of overcoming the severe cognitive dissonance required to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs (stranger things have happened), is choosing the side of the accused. Saying that you believe the accusers but still don't think there should be consequences is choosing the side of the accused. Refusing to engage with the conversation _at all_ is choosing the side of the accused.
> 
> I'm not saying this necessarily as a value statement (though I do clearly have a bias here); simply to be informational. If anyone in this thread believes that there shouldn't be any consequences for the accused, but they also do not think they are taking the side of the accused, they are, sadly, mistaken.





Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it. Feels a bit like voting for third parties in America, though. Is an otherwise liberal voter who dislikes the major party candidate and therefore votes "independent" voting against their ideals by voting for a losing candidate?

This also doesn't really address the potentially very wide gradient of the severity of expected consequences. Formal apology? Financial damages? Incarceration? Is the "he's already apologized" group "on the side" of the accused or the accuser?


----------



## billd91

Gammadoodler said:


> Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it. Feels a bit like voting for third parties in America, though. Is an otherwise liberal voter who dislikes the major party candidate and therefore votes "independent" voting against their ideals by voting for a losing candidate?




As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or to use the other construction, "Hell is full of good meanings but Heaven is full of good *works*." [emphasis mine] While I may applaud good intentions, if the end result is the opposite, what good have you actually done?

So, yeah, very much like voting for a third party candidate who literally cannot win in a system like that in the US. All you do is split the opposition to the candidate whose positions are even worse than the closer-aligned one you don't happen to like.


----------



## Gammadoodler

billd91 said:


> As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or to use the other construction, "Hell is full of good meanings but Heaven is full of good *works*." [emphasis mine] While I may applaud good intentions, if the end result is the opposite, what good have you actually done?
> 
> So, yeah, very much like voting for a third party candidate who literally cannot win in a system like that in the US. All you do is split the opposition to the candidate whose positions are even worse than the closer-aligned one you don't happen to like.




Ennnh..or alternatively, "the choice of the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil" (in point of fact the action taken in your conclusion and the reasoning for it parallel the underlying meaning of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- moral compromise for good reasons)

In any case, I'll leave further political discussion aside (with my apologies).


----------



## AJ the Ronin

Isn't the anonymity of some of the people in the article been compromised by a post in this thread?

Shouldn't the mods continue to protect said anonymity?


----------



## Gradine

Gammadoodler said:


> Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it.




As far as I'm concerned that the's really the only rational way to look at... well, anything. And I don't mean that to say that someone's intent is irrelevant, as is sometimes the ideology of social justice spaces; I think there's a tendency to crucify people by the impact of their actions when they are more effective and civil ways to address the unintentional harm someone is doing. But I mean... yeah, if you hurt somebody, even if you didn't mean to... that still doesn't change the fact that you _hurt_ the person. But intent should totally factor in to the response to the harm (which is why I personally took the approach I did, rather than lumping them in with the "witch-hunt" "SJW" crowd). 

Indeed, popular culture is filled with references about how inaction in the face of evil (and if we can't get on the same page that sexual harassment is evil, if only an extremely banal form of it, we aren't going to see eye to eye on much) is, if not as bad as the evil itself, definitely emboldened and enabling that evil. From "the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" to Harry Potter's "if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy" to that excellent quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu: 
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

You painting this as a novel and extreme notion is conversely odd to me.



> This also doesn't really address the potentially very wide gradient of the severity of expected consequences. Formal apology? Financial damages? Incarceration?




Yes, this is a much more nuanced conversation, as I said in my first post on the subject.



> Is the "he's already apologized" group "on the side" of the accused or the accuser?




This is a little trickier as it plays a part in that more nuanced discussion of "what is or is not an appropriate consequence", but it's definitely at least that far, because it at least acknowledges that both (a) the bad behavior happened (and thus the accusers are believed) and (b) that said behavior, at bare minimum, requires an apology from said bad actor. There's a more nuanced and subjective conversation to be had there about whether that does or does not constitute an appropriate consequence, and how truly appropriate that would be or not would depend on a lot more factors than I suspect we currently have information. There's a case to be made that that's a pretty low bar to clear, and one that might diminish the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment. But _could_ it be an appropriate and acceptable consequence? I won't deny there's a possibility. I mean, it worked for Dan Harmon.

Of course, Dan Harmon acknowledged his behavior, acknowledged the harm he caused and the damage he did, and offered a sincere and heartfelt apology that showed that he had given serious thought to the impact of his actions and grown as a person in light of them, which was ultimately accepted by his accuser. I don't know if you read the individual in question's response earlier in this thread, but it... well, it was not _anything_ like that. But there were also a few glimmers of contrition and sincerity towards the end that suggests that "lifetime banishment" might not be the appropriate consequence either.

There's a tendency to hyperbolically react to the calling to task of harassers within the gaming industry that they represent some call to immediately and permanently vilify those individuals, and while that is _a_ voice in those conversations, they certainly aren't the _only_ voice. I know that "people don't really change" is a fairly widely-held belief, but also one that I think is demonstrably incorrect. I think that there are certainly individuals incapable of change, but that that's far from universal, and probably a sign of something much deeper and much more troubling with the individual. I have always advocated that everyone should be given the opportunity to change themselves. The trouble is that a lot of people don't have _the will_ or _the desire_ to change. And when there's not any pressure to make them change, why should they?

[Edit: I want to make it clear that I do not personally demonize the notion that some behaviors are too far beyond the pale to ever be forgiven, regardless of the contrition or evidence of reform, nor do I intend to demonize the people that hold to that notion, whether or not the behavior in question is sexual harassment. Nobody's owed acceptance for their apologies, certainly not from those who the apologizer have directly harmed. Megan Ganz was in no way required to accept Dan Harmon's apology (a fact that Harmon acknowledged himself, within his apology), and if someone's stance is, for instance, not to attend an event with anybody who has ever been accused of harassment, regardless of the evidence of their reform, I cannot and will not blame them for that stance or hold that against them in any way. I just happen to be a big believer in the notion of restorative justice, personally.]

Which is, again, why I believe quite strongly in the dichotomy I discuss above. If you're not actively pushing for consequences for this sort of behavior, then you've either come down on the side of the accusers not being trustworthy and lying (which, as has been pointed out earlier upthread, is _exceedingly rare_, though not absolutely _nonexistent_, which is why I think the earlier attempt to paint the dichotomy as painting _every_ instance the same was a little off-target), and that the _impact_ of that, regardless of intention, is to support the accused.

I mean, I suppose there's a side-category, inclusive within that side mind you, that _does_ believe the accusers but doesn't think those behaviors are a problem, or otherwise don't think any consequences should befall the accused as a result of those behaviors, but that's a *very* different group of people whose worldview are, subsequently, so incompatible with my own that I will not likely find common ground with them anyway, and who I can speak of with confidence as distinctly "part of the problem". But that's not really what I'm talking about here; the ship has sailed for me at this point in terms of taking the time or energy to engage with that level of toxicity.


----------



## innerdude

Thoughts on this, in no particular order:


I am supportive in general of ENWorld's attempts to publish salient, relevant content that connects the gaming community / gaming culture to broader social issues. One of the great benefits of the Internet and its underlying technologies is the ability to publish information in forums, locations, and formats so as to reach a potential audience. The choice by ENWorld leadership to attempt to facilitate broader social and cultural awareness of gamer-related issues is a net positive.


This particular article seems to be a well-intentioned yet flawed attempt to facilitate discussion. The summaries used by Chris Helton of Sean's responses felt incomplete, and to me did not accurately portray the range of nuance and situational context that Sean's later full disclosure provided. This is problematic, because the most compelling "evidence" portrayed in the article was from the sections Sean most vociferously declared to be outright fabrication. 


I also found the description of the "hug" incident to be disproportionately incendiary relative to the degree of indiscretion. Sean made someone feel uncomfortable in a public gaming setting, that individual expressed their discomfort, and initially that discomfort was not addressed to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party. Yet if we are to believe Sean's account, that discomfort was later addressed in a professional, respectful manner such that both parties were able to resolve the initially perceived differences. 


Despite the flaws in the article text, the repetition of accusations indicate an overall behavior pattern exhibited by Sean that may be problematic. He admits as such, and even goes so far as to admit past wrongdoing and expresses desire to change. In so doing I don't believe Sean deserves a "free pass" for problematic behavior. We only get so much benefit of the doubt from "exceptions to the rule" before the exception is no longer seen as such. 


That said, I don't know that it is my place to necessarily be the arbiter of what would constitute appropriate reparation for any past behavior on Sean's part. I will say that there are portions of Sean's response that are encouraging, including the acceptance of responsibility for past actions, and a commitment on his part to improve. Until such time as those commitments are tested in a relevant public setting, we are to either take Sean at his word or not, as we deem.


I find attempts to sensationalize and polarize discussions on topics like this to be distasteful. There are real issues at stake here, with real implications for how we should look introspectively at our own lives and evaluate our behavior and our attitudes toward the greater good of humanity. The ability for people of both genders, but especially women, to feel safe, comfortable, and energized as a part of our hobby is something of tremendous importance; behavior that damages any participant of our hobby in some way also damages us. Likewise, it is tremendously important to take into account issues of prevailing justice, issues of privacy, issues of false accusation. I would say that the appropriate response from both sides would be to condemn bad behavior along both spectra. None of us are served by allowing individuals to purposefully cause harm, pain, and discomfort to other individuals through coercion, intimidation, and manipulation.


The right to be free from harassment is inextricably tied to the right of free association. By law, at least in the USA, we are afforded the right to freely assemble with like-minded individuals in private. Public association is different, as we do not always freely choose to associate with someone with whom we might come in contact with in a public setting, as both our rights to go to a public space are protected to certain degree. Public association is generally governed by the assumed right of consent---as soon as one party no longer consents to publicly be in the same "space" as another party, then it is up to some governing body---either the property owner of the space, or the actual government---to decide how to administer the assumed agreement that one party no longer consents to the presence of the other.


It is in this context that I think the article is most relevant, as all of us at some point have to decide how we are going to choose to act in accordance with that administration of policy, whether statutory/legal or otherwise. My takeaway from all of this is that I have to prepare myself to act as a good citizen, to be aware of the issue, to understand that inappropriate, harassing behavior is detrimental on its face to the well-being of society.


I do not know Sean Patrick Fannon personally. I have purchased several of his gaming products in the past, and have enjoyed their use in my games. I will likely to continue to use those materials. Having read the article, however, I would be remiss if I didn't at least acknowledge that some of the described behavior felt problematic, and that I would feel the need to evaluate future purchases of Sean's products with greater scrutiny.


----------



## damned

The reason we need to speak out about these things is that if we dont it normalizes and makes the behavior ok if we stay silent. That is what has happened in the past. When we normalize X pretty soon someone starts on Y and then that can become normal and we move on to Z....

Im sure this experience has been unpleasant for Mr Fannon. The point of this is not to demonize him but to highlight the bahavior, address it, and as individuals and as a collective - learn from it and improve. Mr Fannon has acknowledged some culpability and apologized. We need to recognize when we are culpable whether by our actions or by not calling out others poor behavior and improve our behavior, and we need to acknowledge that many women (and also other segments of the population) inherently feel less safe at certain events or gatherings and do a better job of making these places safe.

Hopefully this will make all of us better people, and that all parties come out of this ok, the ladies and Mr Fannon included.


----------



## Morrus

TreChriron said:


> I will be cancelling my support for this site, my EONS subscription and seriously questioning my use of WOIN as a publisher until the two of you apologize to Mr. Fannon, reinstate him as a columnist and get back to doing what ENWorld was designed to do.




I'm willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that my speech - and by extension the speech of those I employ - is for sale; but you can do better than $3, surely?


----------



## DemoMonkey

$3.50, a bag of nectarines, and 100 pages of handwritten Drizzt/My Little Pony fan fic for Morrus's speech!!


----------



## Sunseeker

DemoMonkey said:


> $3.50, a bag of nectarines, and 100 pages of handwritten Drizzt/My Little Pony fan fic for Morrus's speech!!




It's your fault, you made me google it.

https://drizzthunter.deviantart.com/art/Drizzt-Do-Urden-pony-392347119


----------



## Obryn

TreChriron said:


> Well, now that we've burned Sean Patrick Fannon at the stake, justice has been served!! (/sarcasm).
> 
> I would be curious to know, if at least this article has brought these women some closure? Did this punishment make them feel better?
> 
> Maybe Chris Helton can interview them and post an "after action report" to prop up his new career as The Grand Inquisitor of Sexual Harassment.



It's super weird how mad you are about accusations against Fannon, while it's open season on the article's author.


----------



## Calithorne

I avoid this problem by avoiding game conventions.  I went to a game convention once, and my sense of smell was assaulted by all the other people who obviously didn't take showers.  My advice is to stay home and only play with people you know, or people who know people you know.  If somebody acts like a jerk, don't invite him back.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Obryn said:


> It's super weird how mad you are about accusations against Fannon, while it's open season on the article's author.




I am not qualified to judge who is innocent and who is guilty, he might be a harasser, and she might be a girl "crying wolf" in order to ruin his reputation, only a jury can decide. It really has nothing to do with role playing games, sexual harassment can occur anywhere. I think it is a bit much to expect us to judge him here and now on this forum, and I'm not going to do it. If he's guilty and she can prove it in a court of law, then she should press charges, but I don't know her and I don't know him.


----------



## Alphastream

I am glad to see the industry taking steps to recognize our problems, call them out, and deal with them. Our hobby has a long way to go (very clear from these comments), but we will get there. These are vital changes our industry must make to keep growing, and they are the right changes to make.


----------



## Chris Clinch

ok, I do not post much on here, but this article,,, lol where do I begin. Ok I have been in law for over 21 years, and anyone else who has probably cringed like me when they read this. There are three sides to every story, his side, her side and the truth. If he did what he is accused of, it is not appropriate, but to post a online article with the accusations with very little evidence knowing it could wreck someones career was pretty amateurish. If a person wants to be anonymous, guess what YOU can't use that information, a person has a right to face their accuser and if it can't be corroborated do not use it. Like I said if he did what they said, it is not cool, but it is not illegal and not worthy of internet bashing to destroy a career, when very little of it is substantiated. It boils down to a he said she said, like I said not cool if it is true. If you are a "journalist" I guess you skipped the part about liability and defamation of character. I hope you got a lawyer, because that train might a be a coming. I will say it again, I don't like the creepy guys at cons, and yes they are there and have no idea how to act in a social environment. They take it wayyy to far and need to be tossed, but from what I read, I was like hmmmm comments yes, harassment, not so sure. Not worthy of a article like that with all you had was he said she said. I will leave it at that, and I am a little disappointed that a article of that low quality was even posted. It started out as a good read and jumped off the cliff into a bash on one man. It had very little substance to back anything up, only having "stuff you had seen" or anonymous complaints. Like I said, it had a important point but devolved into something I would have seen in the Enquirer, and for you to even suggest you are impartial is a complete Lie. Anyone who reads that article can see there is some venom towards Fannon by Chris, that is obvious in the article and the reply to Fannon that no further contact was necessary. Next time check your sources and make sure there is no other agenda, if what I read on the other posts is true about the witnesses, well sorry but you got some egg on your face. Next time do an article with stories so people can learn, look out for stuff, take action, not a personal witch hunt, you just lost all credibility.


----------



## Koloth

It is sad that in today's hyper sensitive environment, allegations are equated with instant guilt.  What I read in the write up was a series of he said - she said encounters, none of which seem to have resulted in charges being filed or civil action being taken.  

IMO, if harassment rises to the point that a convention is booting someone out,  statements should be written down, recordings made of the allegations and any collaborating witness statements collected and then local law enforcement folks should be contacted and charges brought.  Just booting someone from a convention won't solve the problem.  Without a finding of guilt, the next convention could find itself facing charges of discrimination from the alleged harasser over being excluding from the convention without just cause.


----------



## TreChriron

Morrus said:


> I'm willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that my speech - and by extension the speech of those I employ - is for sale; but you can do better than $3, surely?




How much did SPF's accusers pay you then? Just curious. If we double the offer will you pull down the Tabloid article?  EDIT: Also note that's $3 a month, for $36 a year. Copper Support is about $80 US for the year. That's $116 a tad more than $3...


----------



## Samurai

If the identities of the accusers were kept anonymous in order to protect them from online hatred, why wasn't the identity of the accused also kept anonymous for the same reason?  After all, in the online politically correct world, someone accused of harassing women will face FAR more hatred and backlash than a woman making that claim.  There was no need to name Sean Fannon if you just wanted to talk about improving convention guidelines.  Now that you have, he is sure to face a lot of hate mail and probably financial repercussions.  Since we don't know who is telling the truth, and even if all the accusations are true nothing illegal is alleged, why not protect both parties and just discuss the topic without the hearsay accusations?


----------



## kenmarable

Samurai said:


> After all, in the online politically correct world, someone accused of harassing women will face FAR more hatred and backlash than a woman making that claim.




Citation seriously needed (because considering the massive volume of threats of violence, rape, and death women get on the internet when they speak out is pretty clear evidence that this statement is ridiculously untrue.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well...not exactly.  No right is absolute- rights are always in a balancing act with other rights & duties.
> 
> The right to confront your accusers exists, but it is limited by State & Federal Crime Victim Anonymity statutes, most of which include first and foremost victims of rape and sexual assault.
> 
> Those statutes typically forbid the nonconsentual release of the alleged voctim’s identity as well as their past and present sexual history.  In addition, while they may be called on in court to testify and be cross-examined, most such statutes allow them to do so with an alias like “John/Jane Doe”.  In extreme cases, other measures may be taken.




Addendum: should have mentioned in my post quoted above that violations of crime victim anonymity statutes can lead to criminal *and* civil penalties.  That is, not only could the person who publicizes information the court orders to remain secret face contempt of court fines or jail time, they could also be sued in civil court.  In some jurisdictions, such damages are limited, but not in all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If the identities of the accusers were kept anonymous in order to protect them from online hatred, why wasn't the identity of the accused also kept anonymous for the same reason?




Something like 400+ combined years of UK/USA precedent in which criminal indictments are considered public records.


----------



## RedJenOSU

A few facts before I get to my actual response.

I am a female gamer
I've personally known Sean Patrick Fannon since 1997
I've played tabletop games, LARP'd, attended conventions with Fannon
I count Fannon as one of my friends
Sean Patrick Fannon is a human being and as such not perfect. He is however someone who strives to better not only himself, but everyone he comes into contact. He is a passionate, artistic, unabashed romantic, who's expression of joy and affection could easily come out of a historical romance novel.

The person described as Sean Patrick Fannon in the original article is a highly vilified, one-dimensional caricature of the person I met over 20 years ago on his worst day. 

Sean is one of the most sincere people I have ever met when in comes to apologies. Yes, I've seen him act with all the grace of a bull in a china shop, but I've also seen him fight back tears upon realizing that he may have acted out of line or hurt someone unintentionally. He's constantly evolving and always fighting for the underdog. I've watched Sean grow from the person he described as one acting from blind privilege to someone who is much more aware of the world in which he moves and how his movements affect the other people around him. 

I would love to see a discussion on harassment in gaming and how we as a whole can work to make this an inclusive activity, but there are so many polarizing things that would need to be set aside in order to have an open and honest conversation. There are places on the internet that will vilify women for speaking out and saying #MeToo. There are places that will post alt-facts as truths, when the alternative to a binary fact is a falsehood. 

I don't think I've ever posted here, but I seriously considered created a new account in order to shield myself from any backlash. If you want to talk about harassment policies, then do it. Vilifying a single individual based on allegations does not equate to an article about harassment policies.


----------



## Particle_Man

Chris Clinch said:


> ok, I do not post much on here




That is quite the understatement since that is your first post, at least under that user id.



> If a person wants to be anonymous, guess what YOU can't use that information, a person has a right to face their accuser and if it can't be corroborated do not use it.




I don't think your alleged 21 years in law have served you well here.



> It boils down to a he said she said, like I said not cool if it is true. If you are a "journalist" I guess you skipped the part about liability and defamation of character. I hope you got a lawyer, because that train might a be a coming.




More like he said vs. she said and she said and she said.  Multiple accusers, multiple incidents. And if I were the OP, I would say "bring it!" with respect to a potential libel lawsuit, since it would certainly fail.  Again, I don't think your alleged 21 years in law are serving you well here.


----------



## Particle_Man

kenmarable said:


> Citation seriously needed (because considering the massive volume of threats of violence, rape, and death women get on the internet when they speak out is pretty clear evidence that this statement is ridiculously untrue.)




A woman that accused Judge Moore of sexual abuse/harrassment had her house burned to the ground.  Judge Moore merely lost an election for senator.


----------



## Chris Clinch

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Addendum: should have mentioned in my post quoted above that violations of crime victim anonymity statutes can lead to criminal *and* civil penalties.  That is, not only could the person who publicizes information the court orders to remain secret face contempt of court fines or jail time, they could also be sued in civil court.  In some jurisdictions, such damages are limited, but not in all.



   the problem with your post is that the anonymous person still has to appear in a court of law and give testimony, the name is only protected from the public by not being given or using an alias, the accused still has the chance to face the accuser. This is also not a crime what we are talking about here, the term Harassment is used, but in a criminal standpoint does not fit the standard for evidence.


----------



## Chris Clinch

Particle_Man said:


> That is quite the understatement since that is your first post, at least under that user id.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think your alleged 21 years in law have served you well here.
> probably because it used my FB account not my normal ID.
> 
> 
> More like he said vs. she said and she said and she said.  Multiple accusers, multiple incidents. And if I were the OP, I would say "bring it!" with respect to a potential libel lawsuit, since it would certainly fail.  Again, I don't think your alleged 21 years in law are serving you well here.



  Multiple accusers does not make it true, There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty. As for my experience, actually it serves me quite well, but thanks for asking. As for libel, look it up, if the man loses so much as a dime it fits the bill once he can show damages.


----------



## Parmandur

The fact that he didn't blink at the plausability that he might have shared perverted videos with random woman at a convention says everything. Perverts gonna perv, and if a Con doesn't want a reputation as a hive of scum and villainy, it has to purge them.


----------



## Sunseeker

People seem to be taking a lot of issue with the article, which I find strange, because I found the article fairly neutral in tone, maybe I missed that.



Christopher Helton said:


> The specter of sexual harassment has once again risen up in tabletop gaming circles. Conventions are supposed to be places where gamers and geeks can be themselves and embrace their loves. Conventions need clear and well formulated harassment policies, and they need to enforce them. In this instance the allegations from multiple women have taken place at gaming conventions and gathering in different locations around the country. In one case, the harassment was took place over the course of years and spilled over into electronic formats.



This is fairly boiler-plate article introduction, no names are named, and it sets the stage for what is about to be talked about.



> The alleged harasser in these cases was Sean Patrick Fannon, President of *Evil Beagle Games*, Brand Manager for *Savage Rifts* at *Pinnacle Entertainment Group*, as well as being a game designer and developer with a long history in the tabletop role-playing industry.



If there's something vilifying Sean in this line please someone point it out.  At best there's "alleged harasser".  I'm struggling to think of a good alternative term here.  It's certainly not _positive_ term, but *alleged* is accurate and *harasser* is what Sean is being accused of being.  



> There is a long and untenable policy of harassment at conventions that stretches back to science fiction and fantasy fandom in the 1960s. Atlanta's *Dragon*Con* has been a lightning rod in the discussions about safety at geeky conventions after one of the convention's founders was arrested and pled guilty to three charges of molestation. We have also covered reports of harassment at conventions such as *Paizo Con*, and inappropriate or harassing behavior by notable industry figures. It is clear that clear harassment policies and firm enforcement of them is needed in spaces where members of our community gather, in order that attendees feel safe to go about their hobby. Some companies, such as *Pelgrane Press*, now refuse to attend conventions where a clear harassment policy is not available.



This doesn't seem to be about Sean at all, but gives some backstory on bad things in the past.



> Several women have approached me to tell me about encounters with Fannon. Some of them asked not to be named, or to use their reports for background verification only. We also reached out to Sean Patrick Fannon for his comments, and he was willing to address the allegations.



If there's something vilifying here please point it out.  



> The women that I spoke with had encounters with Fannon that went back to 2013 and 2014 but also happened as recently as the summer of 2017. Each of the locations were in different parts of the country, but all of them occurred when Fannon was a guest of the event.



Seems fairly neutral, the author is stating what he was told by "the women".  



> The worse of the two incidents related to me happened at a convention in the Eastern part of the United States. In going back over texts and messages stretching back years the woman said that it "is frustrating [now] to read these things" because of the cajoling and almost bullying approach that Fannon would use in the messages. She said that Fannon approached her at the con suite of the convention, and after speaking with her for a bit and playing a game with a group in the suite he showed her explicit photos on his cellphone of him engaged in sex acts with a woman.



This is the author relaying what they were told.  



> Fannon's ongoing harassment of this woman would occur both electronically and in person, when they would both be at the same event, and over the course of years he would continue to suggest that she should engage in sexual acts, either with him alone, or with another woman.



And its a summary of the above and indication that there is more without going into explicit detail.  Again, relaying what the author was _told_.



> Fannon denies the nature of the event, saying "I will assert with confidence that at no time would such a sharing have occurred without my understanding explicit consent on the part of all parties. It may be that, somehow, a miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred; the chaos of a party or social gathering may have created a circumstance of all parties not understanding the same thing within such a discourse. Regardless, I would not have opened such a file and shared it without believing, sincerely, it was a welcome part of the discussion (and in pursuit of further, mutually-expressed intimate interest)."



Now the author is relaying what Fannon told them.  



> The second woman, at a different gaming-related event in another part of the country, told of how Fannon, over the course of a day at the event, asked her on four different occasions for hugs, or physical contact with her. Each time she clearly said no to him. The first time she qualified her answer with a "I don't even know you," which prompted Fannon after he saw her for a second time to say "Well, you know me now." She said that because of the multiple attempts in a short period of time that Fannon's behavior felt predatory to her. Afterwards he also attempted to connect with her via Facebook.



Again, relaying what the author was told.



> Afterwards, this second woman contacted the group that organized the event to share what happened and they reached out to Fannon with their concerns towards his behavior. According to sources within the organization at the time, Fannon - as with the first example - described it to the organizers as a misunderstanding on the woman's part. When asked, he later clarified to us that the misunderstanding was on his own side, saying "Honestly, I should have gotten over myself right at the start, simply owned that I misunderstood, and apologized. In the end, that's what happened, and I walked away from that with a pretty profound sense of how to go forward with my thinking about the personal space of those I don't know or know only in passing."



Still just relying information....



> Both women faced ongoing pressure from Fannon, with one woman the experiences going on for a number of years after the initial convention meeting. In both cases he attempted to continue contact via electronic means with varying degrees of success. A number of screen shots from electronic conversations with Fannon were shared with me by both women.



Honestly this article is so dry I'm getting tired just reading it.  More information relay.

So far, as far as I can tell, there has been no "vilification".  For the record, vilification is not a relaying of what someone else tells you, and it is fairly obvious when you read it, because you'll notice emotionally charged words, loaded phrases or even just outrightly disparaging remarks.  

I'm not sure if people's definition of "vilification" means "Sean told the author it was puckey, therefore it is!" but that's _not_ vilification.  



> Diane Bulkeley was willing to come forward and speak on the record of her incidents with Fannon. Fannon made seemingly innocent, and yet inappropriate comments about her body and what he wanted to do with her. She is part of a charity organization that had Fannon as a guest. What happened to her was witnessed by another woman with whom I spoke about that weekend. As Bulkeley heard some things, and her witness others, their experiences are interwoven to describe what happened. Bulkeley described this first encounter at the hotel's elevators: "We were on the floor where our rooms were to go downstairs to the convention floor. I was wearing a tank top and shirt over it that showed my cleavage. He was staring at my chest and said how much he loved my shirt and that I should wear it more often as it makes him hot. For the record I can't help my cleavage is there." Bulkeley went on to describe her mental state towards this "Paying a lady a compliment is one thing, but when you make a direct comment about their chest we have a problem."



Again, the author is relaying the information he was told.  



> Later on in the same day, while unloading some boxes for the convention there was another incident with Fannon. Bulkeley described this: "Well, [the witness and her husband] had to move their stuff from a friends airplane hangar (we all use as storage for cars and stuff) to a storage until next to their house. Apparently Sean, while at the hanger, made grunt noises about my tank top (it was 80 outside) while Tammy was in the truck. I did not see it. But she told me about it. Then as we were unloading the truck at the new facility Sean kept looking down my shirt and saying I have a great view etc. Her husband said to him to knock it off. I rolled my eyes, gave him a glare and continued to work. I did go and put on my event day jacket (light weight jacket) to cover up a little."



This is almost entirely made up of quotes from Bulkeley.
EDIT: corrected Bulkeley's name spelling...



> The witness, who was in the truck with Fannon, said that he "kept leering down at Diane, glancing down her shirt and making suggestive sounds." The witness said that Fannon commented "'I'm liking the view from up here.'"
> 
> Bulkeley talked about how Fannon continued his behavior later on in a restaurant, having dinner with some of the guests of the event. Fannon made inappropriate comments about her body and embarrassed her in front of the other, making her feel uncomfortable throughout the dinner.
> 
> Bulkeley said that Fannon also at one point touched her hair without asking, and smelled it as well. "[Fannon] even would smell my long hair. He begged me to not cut it off at a charity function that was part of the weekend's event." She said that he also pressed his pelvis tightly against her body while hugging her. These incidents occurred at a convention during the summer of 2017.



Again, the author is relaying what they were told.  There isn't even author commentary here like in many modern news articles.  

I mean, if we can't relay to the public what _we were told_ by other people, we've basically eliminated the entire concept of _journalism_.  



> Fannon denies these events. "The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety."
> 
> When asked for comment, and being informed that this story was being compiled Fannon commented "I do not recall any such circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." He went on to say "The only time I recall having ever been counseled or otherwise spoken to about my behavior in such matters is the Gamers Giving/Total Escape Games situation discussed above. The leader of the organization at that time spoke to me specifically, asked me to be aware that it had been an issue, and requested I be aware of it in the future. It was then formally dropped, and that was the end of it until this time."



This looks like entirely quotes from Fannon, so....pretty dry here.



> There were further reports; however, we have respected the wishes of those women who asked to remain anonymous for fear of online harassment. In researching this article, I talked to multiple women and other witnesses.



The author says there's more, don't think we need a mile-long paper here, we get the jist.  But there's still no judgement in this summary of "more content exists" it's just "it's out there".  Pretty vague, but non judgemental.



> About future actions against the alleged behaviors he also said "It is easy, after all, to directly attack and excise obviously predatory and harassing behavior. It is much more difficult to point out and correct behavior that falls within more subtle presentations, and it's more difficult to get folks to see their actions as harmful when they had no intention to cause harm, based on their assumptions of what is and isn't appropriate. It's good for us to look at the core assumptions that lead to those behaviors and continue to challenge them. That's how real and lasting change within society is achieved."



Looks like this is just Fannon's words here.



> Fannon's weekly column will no longer be running on E.N. World.



A statement of facts, not a statement of judgement.



> Have you suffered harassment at the hands of someone, industry insider or otherwise, at a gaming convention? If you would like to tell your story, you can reach out to me via social media about any alleged incidents. We can speak confidentially, but I will have to know the identity of anyone that I speak with.



Okay, and we're not even talking about Fannon here.



> This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear.
> 
> More conventions are rolling out harassment policies for guests and attendees of their conventions. Not only does this help to protect attendees from bad behavior, but it can also help to protect conventions from bad actors within the various communities that gather at our conventions. As incidents of physical and sexual harassment are becoming more visible, it becomes more and more clear that something needs to be done.
> 
> _additional editorial contributions by Morrus_



And I don't see anything here talking negatively about Fannon.

I mean _come on_ people, if you're going to call out an article for attacking someone, at least have an idea of what an attack looks like!  To call out the author as some kind of muck-raking yellow journalist with nothing better to do than attack a "good guy" or whatever when the article is _this ridiculously dry _is patently absurd.  

Aside from a boilerplate statement that "harassment is bad" and "cons need to work harder" there isn't a single judgement upon Fannon at all.  Not once does the author say "If true, this is a pretty damning indictment of Fannon's character." or "It's unbelievable that someone could be so disgusting." I mean, at least know what you're looking for when you're claiming vilification and that sort of thing.  

I mean heck, this is probably the most _boring_ bit of reporting I've read in years.  And that's GOOD.  It's News.  It's "Hey guys, I heard about this thing that happened from these people and here's what they told me."  That's it.  

By all means if you think I'm missing where the author crucifies Fannon, please point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Good breakdown.


----------



## Hussar

I gotta admit I was kinda wondering when all this vilification was going on.


----------



## Sunseeker

Now, let me comment my opinion on some of this and yeah, you can accuse me of vilifying Fannon if you like, because what I'm going to take issue with is what he's said in the article and in this thread.



			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> Fannon denies the nature of the event, saying "I will assert with confidence that at no time would such a sharing have occurred without my understanding explicit consent on the part of all parties.



This is an _odd_ statement for a couple reasons.  First off, why would you be sharing this kind of material at a con?  Like, okay, I guess two people meet up, turns out they have similar kinks and oh hey I just remembered I keep dirty pictures on my phone!  It is _generally_ ill-advised to carry around such material on a phone, take a device that carries such material to a convention, and then start sharing it around at a convention.

To me this reads one of two ways: either Fannon is good at finding people who share his kinks at cons and this time was a misjudgement, or Fannon does this a lot and gets away with it.



			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> It may be that, somehow, a miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred; the chaos of a party or social gathering may have created a circumstance of all parties not understanding the same thing within such a discourse. Regardless, I would not have opened such a file and shared it without believing, sincerely, it was a welcome part of the discussion (and in pursuit of further, mutually-expressed intimate interest)."



Now, _personally_ speaking, I wouldn't carry that material around with me _at all_.  But hey maybe this guy knows something I don't.  Secondly, even if I did, I'd probably say "hey want to come back to my room?" or something along those lines, where there is a more obvious tone of potential intimacy and the sharing of pornographic materials may be enjoyed, privately, by two consenting adults.

Moving on...


			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> The second woman, at a different gaming-related event in another part of the country, told of how Fannon, over the course of a day at the event, asked her on four different occasions for hugs, or physical contact with her. Each time she clearly said no to him. The first time she qualified her answer with a "I don't even know you," which prompted Fannon after he saw her for a second time to say "Well, you know me now." She said that because of the multiple attempts in a short period of time that Fannon's behavior felt predatory to her. Afterwards he also attempted to connect with her via Facebook.



I don't know _when_ or _where_ or _how_ hugs came to be the new handshake, and I'll admit I've seen them coming from a number of professionals in this day and age, from dentists, to doctors to apparently game devs.  _Personally_ I find it weird.  But still, it's one thing to hug a patient, a co-worker, a friend, maybe even a casual acquaintance you haven't seen for a while.  It is another to, when approached by a stranger to make the appropriate gestures indicating that you do hugs instead of handshakes.  Even that, while I find strange, I understand.  It is however, rather awkward to approach _someone else_ and hit them up for a hug.  Much less to do it _multiple times_.  And responding to "I don't know you." later with "Well you know me now." is like the sort of bad pickup lines I'd hear at the local bar, or from a kid with poor socialization skills.

Certainly a person like Fannon should be expected to behave like a professional, in professional settings (even gaming ones which I will accept as more casual than other settings), and should be reasonably expected, given his job and skills, to have social skills better than a pre-teen or a bar patron?  Okay, I get it, a lot of socially awkward people work in a socially awkward hobby, but then these people are typically _introverts_, and the socially awkward do not usually approach others for hugs out of the blue.



			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> Afterwards, this second woman contacted the group that organized the event to share what happened and they reached out to Fannon with their concerns towards his behavior. According to sources within the organization at the time, Fannon - as with the first example - described it to the organizers as a misunderstanding on the woman's part. When asked, he later clarified to us that the misunderstanding was on his own side, saying "Honestly, I should have gotten over myself right at the start, simply owned that I misunderstood, and apologized. In the end, that's what happened, and I walked away from that with a pretty profound sense of how to go forward with my thinking about the personal space of those I don't know or know only in passing."



Well, now I'm confused.  Apparently Fannon has those skills....but doesn't employ them?  Secondly, this is a clear admission that the event described by the woman did indeed happen, so, back to the vilification arguments for a moment: Fannon just admitted he used poor judgement in his approach with this woman.  Do we need detailed examples of every time he did this, or do the accounts of at least two people show that there may be something of a pattern here?

Hold on folks, we're still going down the rabbit hole...


			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> Fannon denies these events. "The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety."



Good, lawyer-like denial.  A smart man stops talking when finished with this sentence.  

Oops...


			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> When asked for comment, and being informed that this story was being compiled Fannon commented "I do not recall any such circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." He went on to say "The only time I recall having ever been counseled or otherwise spoken to about my behavior in such matters is the Gamers Giving/Total Escape Games situation discussed above. The leader of the organization at that time spoke to me specifically, asked me to be aware that it had been an issue, and requested I be aware of it in the future. It was then formally dropped, and that was the end of it until this time."



This statement is all over the place.  What _exactly_ does ..."circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." Like, he's not aware of anyone ever coming to him telling him he made that person feel uncomfortable?  Well, it's not really _on them_ to talk to you privately about it later.  The fact that you made them feel uncomfortable is probably the reason they're not taking it up with you.  And then wait, now he's aware of having been talked to on _at least one occasion_.  Well which is it, do you not remember or do you remember?  Didn't just a few lines before we have a comment _from Fannon himself_ saying that he behaved inappropriately towards a woman at a convention?  Okay, benefit of the doubt, maybe he just doesn't remember any other occasions in the context of _this one con_, but that's sort of an oddly legalistic admission, almost rules-lawyery.  

He clearly _does_ remember when he expressed bad behaviour before, but now he _doesn't_ remember bad behaviour this other time...except when he was talked to about it?

I mean maybe I'm misconstruing the timeline of events here, but I'm more than a little confused on exactly which events he seems to be remembering, or _not_ remembering.



			
				Sean Patrick Fannon said:
			
		

> About future actions against the alleged behaviors he also said "It is easy, after all, to directly attack and excise obviously predatory and harassing behavior. It is much more difficult to point out and correct behavior that falls within more subtle presentations, and it's more difficult to get folks to see their actions as harmful when they had no intention to cause harm, based on their assumptions of what is and isn't appropriate. It's good for us to look at the core assumptions that lead to those behaviors and continue to challenge them. That's how real and lasting change within society is achieved."



At this point my eyebrow is already raised and this commentary doesn't help.  He's claiming he didn't know his behaviour was inappropriate, except for the fact that it had been pointed out to him before.  At best it indicates that Fannon is a poor judge over what his behaviour is or isn't, which is precisely why in the context of discussions like these, is it best to believe the victim (you don't have to act) because the victim clearly saw Fannon's behaviour as something _other_ than what Fannon saw it as.  We can't deny the victim their right to perceive it this way, be that right or wrong, that is _their_ view on it.  

I could probably continue to parse Fannons story as posed in this thread, but I'm kinda tired ya know?

In short from reading that post, it sounds like poor judgement may be an issue of Fannons, including posting that in this thread and perhaps by virtue of copy-pasta, naming names.  The post is all over the place, in parts it's aggressive, in other parts it's apologetic, with Fannon at times seeming to waffle between "yes I knew I did the thing" and "no I never did the thing".  And with a strange pre-cursor paragraph about the importance of #MeToo, but then a followup paragraph that seems to be casting aspersions.  Partly, I just don't really know where to go with it.  Maybe someone less tired than me and more interesting in getting to the heart of the issue can analyze Fannons post for themselves.


----------



## TreChriron

billd91 said:


> Huh. Join date of today. Post count 1. Using a smokescreen of criticizing "journalism" to attack the article outing a misbehaving man. I'm guessing sock puppet who probably thinks GamerGaters weren't misogynists.




Of course. It's about the perverts. Because ENWorld and Chris have accomplished so much with this article to end sexual harassment. Kind of like the Death Penalty ends murder.

Nice spin bro. We're not pissed about someone being called out for Sexual Harassment. We're pissed that this was called out on a "news" site, with craptastic journalistic integrity by someone who is obviously biased and by a "company" that benefits from the bad press and assassination of the target.

Oh, and I'm so sorry ENWorld, I thought you fired SPF, but he quit when he found out you were going to assassinate him. Weird. I guess that's better for your integrity than firing him? I'm not seeing how that works, but considering your enabling a lunatic fanatic to use your site to ruin his enemies, you may not be the BEST judge of... integrity after all.


----------



## darjr

How does losing a fan favorite column benefit ENWorld? Exactly?


----------



## Particle_Man

Chris Clinch said:


> the problem with your post is that the anonymous person still has to appear in a court of law and give testimony, the name is only protected from the public by not being given or using an alias, the accused still has the chance to face the accuser. This is also not a crime what we are talking about here, the term Harassment is used, but in a criminal standpoint does not fit the standard for evidence.




Well I don't have 21 years of legal experience but I do know that ENworld is not a court of law, and thus can run by different standards than a law court.  I mean, if "this not a crime" (your words) then why would the standards of a court of law be even relevant?



Chris Clinch said:


> Multiple accusers does not make it true, There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty. As for my experience, actually it serves me quite well, but thanks for asking. As for libel, look it up, if the man loses so much as a dime it fits the bill once he can show damages.




Again, "innocent until proven guilty" is a law court thing, not a game convention thing, and not a messageboard/gaming site thing.  The latter are within their rights to make "believe the acccuser" and "protect potential and actual victims" their things.  Which I imagine that you would know, what with your 21 years of legal experience.

I doubt libel would make sense if the accusations are true.  And Fannon himself admitted that at least one of them was.  

Also, everything that shidaku said.  No vilification means no libel.


----------



## TreChriron

Obryn said:


> It's super weird how mad you are about accusations against Fannon, while it's open season on the article's author.




The article is a biased obvious assassination piece, poorly verified, and despite all worries to the contrary still published. Regardless of the accusations (which the outcome would have been better handled for all parties involved offline, in a manner that was effective to enable healing...) against Fannon, This is Mr. Helton's 2nd such piece. He's on a crusade to punish people. If you're going to step out as the Inquisitor of ENWorld, you best be ready to handle some push back. I don't believe Mr. Helton's motives are sincere.

Of course, Chris or Morrus or even you could prove me wrong. I'm all eyeballs.

There's no need to find my responses weird. Let me illuminate my concerns so they are plain as day.

I'm pissed. I think this article is a disgusting misuse of Eric Noah's original vision for ENWorld. I think Morrus has been brainwashed by a fanatic who is on a mission to atone for some past sin, and takeout anyone he perceives as the "boogy man". I find this behavior to not only be unacceptable but plainly insane. I've watched Mr. Helton go from a wonderful industry reporter to a unhinged crusader in the span of about 18 months - and apparently no one else is even slightly concerned about his radical change in demeanor. I'm frustrated, that instead of having decent conversations about what we can do to stop sexual harassment we are instead reading hit pieces calling out individuals without any GODDAMNED RECOURSE for those individuals to do anything about it.

I expected better of Morrus. I expected better of my fellow hobbyists. Jesus, our response to incidents of sexual harassment is character assassination? How does that make us better than the harassers?


----------



## Jester David

Chris Clinch said:


> If he did what he is accused of, it is not appropriate, but to post a online article with the accusations with very little evidence knowing it could wreck someones career was pretty amateurish.



The word of three individuals counts as "very little evidence"? 
How many victims would there need to be? Five? Ten? Twenty?

What is the cut off point where it becomes acceptable to damaging one person's career? 



Chris Clinch said:


> If a person wants to be anonymous, guess what YOU can't use that information, a person has a right to face their accuser and if it can't be corroborated do not use it.



The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. This is not a trial, let alone a criminal one. 

If Human Resources confronts you about about complaints regarding your behaviour, they're going to laugh at requests to confront your accuser. That's pretty much what this is. We're HR for the gaming community. 



Chris Clinch said:


> Like I said if he did what they said, it is not cool, but it is not illegal and not worthy of internet bashing to destroy a career,



Only criminal activities are worth destroying a career? You can be a creep and a jerk and a pervert but as long as you don't shoplift you're a welcome member of the community?
I don't think so. 



Chris Clinch said:


> when very little of it is substantiated.



So the accusers are liars? 



Chris Clinch said:


> It boils down to a he said she said, like I said not cool if it is true.



It'd actually be he said, she & she & she said. Because there's three accusers (and were four).



Chris Clinch said:


> If you are a "journalist" I guess you skipped the part about liability and defamation of character. I hope you got a lawyer, because that train might a be a coming.



What type of law did you practice again? 



Chris Clinch said:


> I will say it again, I don't like the creepy guys at cons, and yes they are there and have no idea how to act in a social environment. They take it wayyy to far and need to be tossed, but from what I read, I was like hmmmm comments yes, harassment, not so sure.



This makes it seem like we can only deal with creepy guys at cons at the time. That our only action is to eject them from that convention and can't do anything after the fact. 

That's a short term fix. It doesn't prevent repeated behaviour. And it doesn't keep those individuals from finding work. 



Chris Clinch said:


> Not worthy of a article like that with all you had was he said she said. I will leave it at that, and I am a little disappointed that a article of that low quality was even posted. It started out as a good read and jumped off the cliff into a bash on one man. It had very little substance to back anything up, only having "stuff you had seen" or anonymous complaints.



Anonymous to us. Because we don't need to know. Not anonymous to the journalist. 

Numerous journalists use anonymous sources. It's common practice. 



Chris Clinch said:


> Next time check your sources and make sure there is no other agenda, if what I read on the other posts is true about the witnesses, well sorry but you got some egg on your face.



Curious how you believe that post without question but have instant doubts of the word of the accusers. 
Why are his statements more believable? How is he more trustworthy?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: Defamation.  Here are the defenses, paraphrased from:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html



> The major defenses to defamation are:
> 
> Truth: Truth is an absolute defense to defamation- a false statement of fact. So, if the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.  (Remember, since the person alleging defamation is the plaintiff, the burden of proof is theirs- *they must prove the statement is untrue.*)
> 
> The allegedly defamatory statement was merely a statement of opinion: defamation is a false statement of fact, so a statement of opinion cannot be defamatory.  In a defamation lawsuit, a jury will be instructed to look at all of the circumstances surrounding the uttering of the defamatory statement, including how well you knew the person defamed, how well you knew the person you said the allegedly defamatory statement to, how precise the allegedly defamatory statement was, and why you made that statement. If, putting it all together, a jury believes that you were really making a specific statement of fact and hiding it as a supposed statement of opinion, you will be found liable for defamation.
> 
> Consent to the publication of the allegedly defamatory statement nullifies defamation by definition.
> 
> Absolute privilege:the person making the statement has the absolute right to make that statement at that time, even if it is defamatory. In other words, the person making the defamatory statement is immune from a defamation lawsuit.
> In general, absolute privilege exempts persons from liability for potentially defamatory statements made:
> -during judicial proceedings
> -by high government officials
> -by legislators during legislative debates
> -during political broadcasts or speeches, and
> -in between spouses.
> 
> Qualified privilege: the person making the allegedly defamatory statement may have had some right to make that statement.  If QP applies, the person suing for defamation must prove that the person who made the defamatory statement acted intentionally, recklessly, or with malice, hatred, spite, ill will or resentment, depending on your state’s law.
> 
> Retraction of the allegedly defamatory statement: again, reasons being self-evident.


----------



## Samurai

It used to be a guiding principle of not just our justice system but our society in general that it is "*better that 10 guilty people go free rather than wrongly punish 1 innocent person.*"  I think our modern society has reversed that, such that many people now feel it's "*better 10 innocent people are wrongly punished rather than 1 guilty person get away with it.*"  You see this in college campus kangaroo courts and the haste to condemn anyone accused, like it was some witch trial in Salem and the last one to condemn the accused witch is deemed to probably be yet another witch that needs to be investigated.

Some here have said "this isn't a court trial", but it is... the court of public opinion.  Where even if you are not found guilty of anything, many people will still treat you as if you are, and where once your reputation is ruined, it's nearly impossible to get it back.

I just find it sad that the whole thing was handled so poorly, when it didn't need to be.


----------



## billd91

RedJenOSU said:


> I don't think I've ever posted here, but I seriously considered created a new account in order to shield myself from any backlash. If you want to talk about harassment policies, then do it. Vilifying a single individual based on allegations does not equate to an article about harassment policies.




I can appreciate your posting this on behalf of a friend. But as we've been learning with character defenses made on behalf of Al Franken and Tom Brokaw, a statement that Fannon hasn't acted like a harasser around you isn't a sure proof he hasn't acted like one with others. If he's the kind of guy you say he is, it may just mean that, if he is a harasser, he doesn't rise to the level of Matt Lauer or Harvey Weinstein. 

Ultimately, why should we discount the statements of three people (as reported in the OP) in favor of yours? Isn't it possible that all of you are accurately describing the Fannon you each know?


----------



## Jester David

Samurai said:


> It used to be a guiding principle of not just our justice system but our society in general that it is "*better that 10 guilty people go free rather than wrongly punish 1 innocent person.*"  I think our modern society has reversed that, such that many people now feel it's "*better 10 innocent people are wrongly punished rather than 1 guilty person get away with it.*"  You see this in college campus kangaroo courts and the haste to condemn anyone accused, like it was some witch trial in Salem and the last one to condemn the accused witch is deemed to probably be yet another witch that needs to be investigated.
> 
> Some here have said "this isn't a court trial", but it is... the court of public opinion.  Where even if you are not found guilty of anything, many people will still treat you as if you are, and where once your reputation is ruined, it's nearly impossible to get it back.
> 
> I just find it sad that the whole thing was handled so poorly, when it didn't need to be.



Blackstone's formulation is fine in theory. But a problem with that theory is that the 10 freed guilty people who got off without any punishment are invariably going to go off an cause more suffering. So rather than 1 person suffering, you end up with 10 or 20 or 30 innocent people suffering. So you can't be so afraid of going after an innocent person that you never accuse anyone of any crimes.

The question again is how many victims are required? How many people have to speak up before it's acceptable to level accusations?
Where's the line? Please, enlighten us.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Ultimately, why should we discount the statements of three people (as reported in the OP) in favor of yours? Isn't it possible that all of you are accurately describing the Fannon you each know?




This is _entirely_ possible.
View attachment 97003

I’ve read quite a bit on human serial predators, mostly serial killers.  Many were monstrous misfits, but others like Israel Keys only revealed their darkness to their victims.

Worse, I’ve personally known 3 confirmed pedophiles in my social circle.  One was also known to a mental health care friend of mine (who almost joined the BAU) because we all played D&D together.  None of them triggered any red flags by their behavior- we weren’t their targets.

People like that often don’t stand out in day-to-day life.  They are skilled at compartmentalizing their lives.  As put in the TV series, they have excellent “human suits”.


----------



## Imaculata

There sure are a lot of new users in this thread with a post count of 3 or less. Just saying.

As for all the people defending this sort of behavior, all I can say is: 
"_The internet never disappoints to disappoint._"

I don't know whether the allegations are true, but usually when multiple independent people both come out with accusations against the same person, that is an indication of a pattern of misbehavior. And I am inclined to take them serious.

As I understand it, this article is not just an accusation, but a statement regarding how the site stands on the topic of sexual harassment. I think it was important to make this statement, if only to make it perfectly clear that this sort of behavior is not accepted here. I also see it as an encouragement for other victims who have not spoken out about their experiences, to not be afraid and step forward, knowing that the site is willing to listen and take their stories seriously as well.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Worse, I’ve personally known 3 confirmed pedophiles in my social circle.




Good grief that is a lot!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> Good grief that is a lot!




It is _super_ creepy.  I said I played D&D alongside (the third) one.

The second was a guy old enough to be my Dad, and he was a freind of one of my best freind’s dad.  The guy was cool- went to Woodstock, avid boardgamer, bridge whiz, funny as hell.  Now doing a long stretch in prison.

He admits to his sickness, and says he is in the right place.  Scarily, though, he claims he’s not guilty of the particular crime of which he was committed.  IOW, if he’s telling the truth, they got _A_ sicko, but the _wrong_ sicko.


----------



## Tun Kai Poh

shidaku said:


> Again, the author is relaying what they were told.  There isn't even author commentary here like in many modern news articles.
> 
> I mean, if we can't relay to the public what _we were told_ by other people, we've basically eliminated the entire concept of _journalism_.




Amen to that.

Chris spent a great deal of effort making sure that he wrote this article to professional standards, which he did. If there are any instances of "vilification" in his reporting I have yet to see anyone point them out.


----------



## Tun Kai Poh

Also, I've just joined the Patreon for EN World journalism to show my support. This is exactly the kind of work EN World should be doing in the community.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He admits to his sickness, and says he is in the right place.  Scarily, though, he claims he’s not guilty of the particular crime of which he was committed.  IOW, if he’s telling the truth, they got _A_ sicko, but the _wrong_ sicko.




Absolutely wow.

Despite the fact that I live in a country where violence and crime are sadly all too common, I find it strange when I hear of sexism and anything worse occurring within the sanctity of our hobby. Generally I view roleplayers as _good_ guys through my rose-coloured glasses. I think it might have something to do with how small the roleplaying community is over here compared to the States. My city has only recently been blessed with an annual fancom.

So, I find I cannot relate to stories such as these when I hear them. And it is not like we are so small that we don't have female roleplayers - I have one in each of my games and they are not wives or girlfriends of either of the rest of the group.


----------



## Guest 6801328

pming said:


> (I'm basically a straight white male who likes the President, overall, so I'm automatically evil, a sexual predator, guilty, misogynistic, racist, neo-Nazi, and a liar).




Well, I'll give you tons of credit for acknowledging it rather than hedging and evading.


----------



## Guest 6801328

TreChriron said:


> The article is a biased obvious assassination piece, poorly verified, and despite all worries to the contrary still published. Regardless of the accusations (which the outcome would have been better handled for all parties involved offline, in a manner that was effective to enable healing...) against Fannon, This is Mr. Helton's 2nd such piece. He's on a crusade to punish people. If you're going to step out as the Inquisitor of ENWorld, you best be ready to handle some push back. I don't believe Mr. Helton's motives are sincere.
> 
> Of course, Chris or Morrus or even you could prove me wrong. I'm all eyeballs.
> 
> There's no need to find my responses weird. Let me illuminate my concerns so they are plain as day.
> 
> I'm pissed. I think this article is a disgusting misuse of Eric Noah's original vision for ENWorld. I think Morrus has been brainwashed by a fanatic who is on a mission to atone for some past sin, and takeout anyone he perceives as the "boogy man". I find this behavior to not only be unacceptable but plainly insane. I've watched Mr. Helton go from a wonderful industry reporter to a unhinged crusader in the span of about 18 months - and apparently no one else is even slightly concerned about his radical change in demeanor. I'm frustrated, that instead of having decent conversations about what we can do to stop sexual harassment we are instead reading hit pieces calling out individuals without any GODDAMNED RECOURSE for those individuals to do anything about it.
> 
> I expected better of Morrus. I expected better of my fellow hobbyists. Jesus, our response to incidents of sexual harassment is character assassination? How does that make us better than the harassers?




Are you saying that allegations of egregious behavior cannot be reported unless they can first be _proven_?  It sure seems like it.  

I bet Bill Cosby wishes that were the case.

That would have huge implications beyond sexual harassment and assault, but without even going there think about the implications: without DNA evidence, or video tape, these sorts of allegations could not be reported.  And if an actual crime hasn't been committed, there would be no point going to the police.

So "men" (which I put in quotes because we are talking about the most pathetic, worthless members of the gender) who could toe the line of not actually committing a crime, without leaving any objective evidence, could get away with whatever they wanted.

Now, I also acknowledge that we need to guard against destroying reputations/careers/lives based on unverifiable accusations.  Just as a person accused and acquitted of a crime often carries a lingering stigma, a man accused of sexual misconduct can carry a stigma (well, not with a certain sub-set of the "men" I mention above) even after he is exonerated.  And that is not right.  But neither is it right that a victim should have no voice unless her allegations can be proven.  It's hard, and there's no perfect answer.

But a gag order on unproven allegations is clearly just going to _encourage_ vile behavior.


----------



## jasper

Morrus said:


> I'm willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that my speech - and by extension the speech of those I employ - is for sale; but you can do better than $3, surely?



wtf! bad show. bad show. bad show. That smiley does not help. If $3 is the actual amount that TreChriron pays, then you just tried to embarrass him.


----------



## Particle_Man

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the person being accused of sexually harassing women being the one called the victim of a witch hunt?  What with the historical witch hunts being primarily against women?

I've seen it here, I've seen it with defenders of Weinstein, defenders of Bill Cosby, and of course, Trump tweets it with regard to himself.


----------



## jasper

Particle_Man said:


> A woman that accused Judge Moore of sexual abuse/harrassment had her house burned to the ground.  Judge Moore merely lost an election for senator.



House burn on Jan 2. Now May 2. I can not find an arson charges filed. Or have I just forgot Moore.


----------



## RedJenOSU

billd91 said:


> I can appreciate your posting this on behalf of a friend. (snip) a statement that Fannon hasn't acted like a harasser around you isn't a sure proof he hasn't acted like one with others.




I have not said either way whether or not Fannon has acted like a harasser around me, in fact I said that I've seen Fannon grow beyond his former behavior (from his own description). I've personally been involved in private conversations with Sean about how when interacting with mostly new people, but people in general, the difference between his intentions and how other perceive his actions. I've see this man struggle to reconcile what he thought he knew with information that ran completely counter to what he had previously believed and then act to change his future interactions.

Harassment is a systemic issue steeped in white male privilege, so until that bit is embraced by the gaming culture as a whole, I fear that we will see individuals held up for crucifixion (to the chant of "not all men") as examples of how things get fixed. There are microaggressions that a second nature to the male gamer and those will not go away until every gamer (male and female) learns to check their privilege and take a honest look at how they treat (consciously or unconsciously) the people around them and consider whether or not their actions have contributed to the overall culture that has allowed harassment to be swept under the rug for so long.


----------



## Imaculata

TreChriron said:


> The article is a biased obvious assassination piece




And you base this on what?



TreChriron said:


> , poorly verified, and despite all worries to the contrary still published.




Based on what?



TreChriron said:


> Regardless of the accusations (which the outcome would have been better handled for all parties involved offline, in a manner that was effective to enable healing...)




So you think it is better to keep silent about these sorts of accusations? Isn't that precisely the problem with sexual harassment? Maybe if more people spoke up about it (openly), we wouldn't have these sorts of stories coming out on a weekly basis.



TreChriron said:


> against Fannon, This is Mr. Helton's 2nd such piece. He's on a crusade to punish people.




Based on what?



TreChriron said:


> I don't believe Mr. Helton's motives are sincere.




Based on what?



TreChriron said:


> Of course, Chris or Morrus or even you could prove me wrong. I'm all eyeballs.




So in your opinion, Fannon is innocent until proven guilty, and Chris and Morrus are guilty, until proven innocent?



TreChriron said:


> I think this article is a disgusting misuse of Eric Noah's original vision for ENWorld.




I think neither you nor I is in the position to comment on what Eric Noah's original vision for EnWorld is, and whether this particular article lines up with that vision.



TreChriron said:


> I think Morrus has been brainwashed by a fanatic who is on a mission to atone for some past sin, and takeout anyone he perceives as the "boogy man".




You know, this sounds oddly similar to what people were saying in defense of Bill Cosby.


----------



## kenmarable

TreChriron said:


> I think Morrus has been brainwashed by a fanatic who is on a mission to *atone for some past sin*, and takeout anyone he perceives as the "boogy man".




What are you accusing Helton of? Seriously, that sure is sounding like you are accusing him of past wrongdoing. So what are you accusing him of?

_And to turn this around, to show how absurd this line of reasoning is:_
Your comment is just an assassination hit piece against him. Do you have verified evidence of this? Do you have witnesses? Shouldn't you consider him innocent until proven guilty? How do we know you aren't making accusations just to push some agenda? False accusations ruin lives all the time, you know. How do we know you aren't just a fanatic with a grudge against Helton? What past sin are you atoning for with your continuous attacks on Helton's character? You do seem awfully intent on making this about Helton's character rather than the actual accusations against Fannon, why is that?


----------



## Fandabidozi

Innocent until proven guilty


----------



## dutch206

*This is not why I come to EN World*

Character assassination by means of yellow journalism is not what I expect from Morrus and EN World. Hidden sources, evidence that has been collected but can’t be shared...this is a hatchet job.  Until there is visible evidence, you have published an article defaming the character of SPF.  

I can’t support this kind of vindictive he said/she said mess.  If you feel sexually harassed, file a police report and have SPF charged in court. I will be unsubscribing to everything and deleting my account.  EN World is obviously not the objective news source I thought it was.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

RedJenOSU said:


> A few facts before I get to my actual response.
> 
> I am a female gamer
> I've personally known Sean Patrick Fannon since 1997
> I've played tabletop games, LARP'd, attended conventions with Fannon
> I count Fannon as one of my friends
> Sean Patrick Fannon is a human being and as such not perfect. He is however someone who strives to better not only himself, but everyone he comes into contact. He is a passionate, artistic, unabashed romantic, who's expression of joy and affection could easily come out of a historical romance novel.
> 
> The person described as Sean Patrick Fannon in the original article is a highly vilified, one-dimensional caricature of the person I met over 20 years ago on his worst day.
> 
> Sean is one of the most sincere people I have ever met when in comes to apologies. Yes, I've seen him act with all the grace of a bull in a china shop, but I've also seen him fight back tears upon realizing that he may have acted out of line or hurt someone unintentionally. He's constantly evolving and always fighting for the underdog. I've watched Sean grow from the person he described as one acting from blind privilege to someone who is much more aware of the world in which he moves and how his movements affect the other people around him.
> 
> I would love to see a discussion on harassment in gaming and how we as a whole can work to make this an inclusive activity, but there are so many polarizing things that would need to be set aside in order to have an open and honest conversation. There are places on the internet that will vilify women for speaking out and saying #MeToo. There are places that will post alt-facts as truths, when the alternative to a binary fact is a falsehood.
> 
> I don't think I've ever posted here, but I seriously considered created a new account in order to shield myself from any backlash. If you want to talk about harassment policies, then do it. Vilifying a single individual based on allegations does not equate to an article about harassment policies.




As I see it there are two possibilities, either he is a harasser or the person making the accusation is making a false claim trying to ruin his reputation. Also sexual harassment has a highly ambiguous definition, not as clear cut as rape is for instance. There is a lot of "witch hunting" going on, it is kind of like the "red scare" of the 1950s only instead of accusing people of being Communists, they are being accused of sexual harassment. A woman can say anything, she can accuse someone of sexual harassment without it actually being true, and that is one thing I ask you to keep in mind, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Just because a girl is pretty doesn't mean she is right. As I recall, it was women who also initiated the original Salem witch trials, they made false accusations and people got hung because of those accusations.


----------



## Obryn

TreChriron said:


> I'm pissed. I think this article is a disgusting misuse of Eric Noah's original vision for ENWorld. I think Morrus has been brainwashed by a fanatic who is on a mission to atone for some past sin, and takeout anyone he perceives as the "boogy man". I find this behavior to not only be unacceptable but plainly insane. I've watched Mr. Helton go from a wonderful industry reporter to a unhinged crusader in the span of about 18 months - and apparently no one else is even slightly concerned about his radical change in demeanor. I'm frustrated, that instead of having decent conversations about what we can do to stop sexual harassment we are instead reading hit pieces calling out individuals without any GODDAMNED RECOURSE for those individuals to do anything about it.
> 
> I expected better of Morrus. I expected better of my fellow hobbyists. Jesus, our response to incidents of sexual harassment is character assassination? How does that make us better than the harassers?



Dude.


----------



## Imaculata

Thomas Bowman said:


> As I recall, it was women who also initiated the original Salem witch trials, they made false accusations and people got hung because of those accusations.




Glad at least someone is keeping a reasonable perspective.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Elfcrusher said:


> Are you saying that allegations of egregious behavior cannot be reported unless they can first be _proven_?  It sure seems like it.
> 
> I bet Bill Cosby wishes that were the case.
> 
> That would have huge implications beyond sexual harassment and assault, but without even going there think about the implications: without DNA evidence, or video tape, these sorts of allegations could not be reported.  And if an actual crime hasn't been committed, there would be no point going to the police.
> 
> So "men" (which I put in quotes because we are talking about the most pathetic, worthless members of the gender) who could toe the line of not actually committing a crime, without leaving any objective evidence, could get away with whatever they wanted.
> 
> Now, I also acknowledge that we need to guard against destroying reputations/careers/lives based on unverifiable accusations.  Just as a person accused and acquitted of a crime often carries a lingering stigma, a man accused of sexual misconduct can carry a stigma (well, not with a certain sub-set of the "men" I mention above) even after he is exonerated.  And that is not right.  But neither is it right that a victim should have no voice unless her allegations can be proven.  It's hard, and there's no perfect answer.
> 
> But a gag order on unproven allegations is clearly just going to _encourage_ vile behavior.




Well if it can be used against one man, it can be used against another, I am a man, and if I see another man being "tarred and feathered" without benefit of a trial, then I know I could be next. I don't really care about Bill Cosby, but if he actually did something, then I would like to see it actually proven before their are consequences for him, and that is all in my self-interest. It may be difficult for a girl to make a case in a court of law, but the alternative is to have runaway "witch trial" like proceedings. In the case or rape the definition is more concrete, that would be forced sex on an unwilling partner, with sexual harassment, it could be someone just said something that the female didn't like, instead of looking for evidence, we have people arguing over definitions of what exactly amounts to sexual harassment and what does not! It is that "grey zone" which bothers me. A person who is unattached, like I once was, has to take an enormous risk, if he wants to find his "significant other". Runaway sexual harassment charges makes if very dangerous for a person who is trying to seek his soulmate. If you don't communicate, you don't succeed, if you say the wrong thing, it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, and the latitude for such interpretation is very wide.

Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.


----------



## Imaculata

Thomas Bowman said:


> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.




...Or guy gets magic ring, guy meets wizard. Wizard sets guy off on an epic and dangerous quest. 

Yet another classic situation. 

But does either situation have any basis in reality, or have any bearing on this specific case? Perhaps a better question is, if multiple women (who do not know each other) come forward and say they were sexually harassed by the same guy. Should you dismiss it because it is (as you say) unproven, or should you immediately take it VERY serious?


----------



## Obryn

Thomas Bowman said:


> ...
> A person who is unattached, like I once was, has to take an enormous risk, if he wants to find his "significant other". Runaway sexual harassment charges makes if very dangerous for a person who is trying to seek his soulmate. If you don't communicate, you don't succeed, if you say the wrong thing, it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, and the latitude for such interpretation is very wide.
> 
> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.



I don't think you have a realistic perspective on this, but I don't really have the time to untangle everything that's going on in these two paragraphs.  We can start with "Asking someone out and quitting when rejected" is not harassment, but from there, oof.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades

This article is a defamation suit waiting to happen.


----------



## Sunseeker

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well if it can be used against one man, it can be used against another, I am a man, and if I see another man being "tarred and feathered" without benefit of a trial, then I know I could be next. I don't really care about Bill Cosby, but if he actually did something, then I would like to see it actually proven before their are consequences for him, and that is all in my self-interest.It may be difficult for a girl to make a case in a court of law, but the alternative is to have runaway "witch trial" like proceedings. In the case or rape the definition is more concrete, that would be forced sex on an unwilling partner, with sexual harassment, it could be someone just said something that the female didn't like, instead of looking for evidence, we have people arguing over definitions of what exactly amounts to sexual harassment and what does not! It is that "grey zone" which bothers me. A person who is unattached, like I once was, has to take an enormous risk, if he wants to find his "significant other". Runaway sexual harassment charges makes if very dangerous for a person who is trying to seek his soulmate. If you don't communicate, you don't succeed, if you say the wrong thing, it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, and the latitude for such interpretation is very wide.



OMG seriously?  What kind of garbage is this?

Young men can't find their soulmates because they're scared of being accused of sexual assault?  

Here's some protips:
DONT: Stare at a womans boobs and make grunting noises.
DO: Compliment a woman on her overall appearance, ie: "Janice you look nice today."

DONT: Approach random women asking for hugs.
DO: Extend a hand for a handshake when in professional company.

DONT: Continue to pester a woman for sex after she says no.
DO: Take "no" for an answer.

DONT: Pull out the prono you keep on your phone when you think a woman is interested.
DO: Carry around cute pictures of dogs.

Like, it's not hard in even the slightest imagining to approach a woman in a friendly manner and make it clear you're interested in a relationship without coming across like a creep.  And even easier to come across without sexually harassing or assaulting a woman.



> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.



Why, exactly?  These sorts of situations make up an incredibly minor portion of actual sexual assault and rape.  To say "Well my concern is really with these few maligned young men." is to say that your concern is _not_ with the many _actually_ sexually assaulted women.

So this is garbage.  Manufactured outrage over garbage.


----------



## kenmarable

Once more for those in the back:



shidaku said:


> To say "Well my concern is really with these few maligned young men." is to say that your concern is _not_ with the many _actually_ sexually assaulted women.




Also, it's even better than that. It's saying "If any man can be falsely accused, then *I* can be falsely accused, and that hypothetical risk is more important than the millions of women who are actually sexually assaulted and harassed."


----------



## Guest 6801328

Thomas Bowman said:


> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.




So, what we're weighing is protection for women (from harassment and assault) vs. protection for men (from false accusations).  Both are important.

There are hundreds...thousands...of cases of women not just being 'harassed' in the sense of being flirted with, but assaulted, raped, traumatized, humiliated, and careers derailed.

Meanwhile there are cases of women falsely accusing men (c.f Tawana Brawley) but they are few and far between.  

In other words, the "classic situation" you describe is "classic" only in the sense that misogynists invoke it as a bogeyman to silence women.

The truly classic situation is that a woman is assaulted by a man who gets away with it because there's no incontrovertible "proof" that it happened.

TL;DR: You are arguing that men are more important than women, because allowing justice for a woman has a slight risk of becoming an injustice for a man.


----------



## Jester David

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well if it can be used against one man, it can be used against another, I am a man, and if I see another man being "tarred and feathered" without benefit of a trial, then I know I could be next.



Would you demand a trial before you kicked someone out of a game store? Ejected someone from a convention? Booted someone from your homegame?

Is a trial required to fire someone accused of misconduct at a job? 
If three different people go to their boss and all accuse a coworker of harassing them at work, should there be zero consequences until it can be proven beyond a doubt by a jury?



Thomas Bowman said:


> I don't really care about Bill Cosby, but if he actually did something, then I would like to see it actually proven before their are consequences for him, and that is all in my self-interest.



He was found guilty on all charges by a jury.
What more do you need?



Thomas Bowman said:


> It may be difficult for a girl to make a case in a court of law, but the alternative is to have runaway "witch trial" like proceedings. In the case or rape the definition is more concrete, that would be forced sex on an unwilling partner, with sexual harassment, it could be someone just said something that the female didn't like, instead of looking for evidence, we have people arguing over definitions of what exactly amounts to sexual harassment and what does not! It is that "grey zone" which bothers me.



Again, this sets the bar at "criminal sexual harrasment". You have to do a HELL of a lot of sexual harassment to be sent to trial let alone found guilty. You pretty much need to cross the line to some form of assault. 

There is a wealth of inappropriate behaviour that is entirely unacceptable and against social norms, but not technically illegal, let alone grounds for criminal indictment.
For example, leering at a woman’s chest and sayings “ooooo mama” is not illegal. But is super pervy. Heck, even walking up to a woman in a crowded restaurant full of witnesses and in view of a CC TV camera and grabbing a breast is unlikely to land you more than a few hours of community service and a fine. 
(As a class-B misdemeanor, forcible touching carries a penalty of 30 days to 6 months in jail with a fine of up to $500.)



Thomas Bowman said:


> A person who is unattached, like I once was, has to take an enormous risk, if he wants to find his "significant other". Runaway sexual harassment charges makes if very dangerous for a person who is trying to seek his soulmate. If you don't communicate, you don't succeed, if you say the wrong thing, it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, and the latitude for such interpretation is very wide.



This is easy. 
Don't be a creep. Don't be a creepy perv. Respect boundaries. Get clear verbal consent. Accept "no" for an answer. And silence isn't a "yes". 
The rules haven't changed. Expectations have not changed.



Thomas Bowman said:


> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment.



This is an imaginary fear.
Like the idea of 8-year-olds making up false molestation charges against teachers they don't like. People likely to do so usually have a well established reputation for dishonesty. No one decided to switch from being honest and reputable to lying and destroying someone's life at the drop of a hat. And if it works, they're unlikely to stop there and will likely repeat the lie or build on it until it falls apart.

At the age where this would happen, people know better. People aren't sociopaths. They're not going to destroy the life of some stranger for kicks or on a whim.


----------



## Gradine

Tun Kai Poh said:


> Also, I've just joined the Patreon for EN World journalism to show my support. This is exactly the kind of work EN World should be doing in the community.




I, too, will be upping my contributions to EN World as a result.

It is nice to see a gaming site actually dedicated to standing up for justice and progress, and not letting their community devolve into a festering site of hatred and toxicity like some kind of 4chan.


----------



## Morrus

Thomas Bowman said:


> Here is a classic situation, guy likes girl, girl doesn't like guy, but the guy doesn't know that so he decides to ask her out, the girl being very mean decides to be vindictive, because she thinks he is a creep, so she decides to land him in a bit of trouble and she accuses him of sexual harassment. I am married now, so it is not a problem for me, but for a younger unmarried guy, this could be a problem, that is what I'm concerned about.




I've never seen that happen in my life. That isn't a real problem, and certainly isn't a classic situation.


----------



## Maul

As a dude and a fan of "MY PERSONAL SPACE BUBBLE",  I do agree that the following are harassment:
- Hair Smelling
- Pelvic thrust hugs
- Constant and repeated advances AFTER the women told him to quit doing it.  (Although some women like a persistent man its hard to gage this one unless you are there and can see the reactions of the women.)
- Making awkward and very sexual advances.......If that isn't bad enough HE DID IT IN FRONT OF THE WOMANS HUSBAND!!....... My question is,  Why the hell didn't the husband knock this dude the hell out!  

***  Although "IF" I was single and the woman was supper model hot,  I would'nt care if she did all that to me.  But I am happily married to a super hot lady so none of this would ever come in to play for me. ***


What I don't think is harassment:
- Telling a woman she looks good (But in a non-creepy way)
- Looking at a womans boobs. I am a huge fan of boobs.  But I'm not going to comment out loud about them.
- Guys are very visual creatures.  If I see a nice butt or boobs,......  I am going to look. Not touch or make comments that would make a stripper blush.

I, in no way condone what this dude did.  He took it to a creepy level.  Maybe he is very crappy at reading signs from women......maybe he has a warped sense of what women want and how to present it.......I don't know the guy.......hopefully everything gets sorted out correctly for both parties.


----------



## Dire Bare

Maul said:


> What I don't think is harassment:
> - Telling a woman she looks good (But in a non-creepy way)
> - Looking at a womans boobs. I am a huge fan of boobs.  But I'm not going to comment out loud about them.
> - Guys are very visual creatures.  If I see a nice butt or boobs,......  I am going to look. Not touch or make comments that would make a stripper blush.




Noticing that you find a woman attractive, looking at a woman's breasts, butt, or whatever, giving a woman a compliment are not in-and-of-themselves harassing behaviors. But it's all in HOW you look, stare, ogle, leer, and comment that can very much be harassment. There are too many guys who don't get the difference, or don't care to make the difference, and that is a problem.


----------



## Parmandur

Sadras said:


> Absolutely wow.
> 
> Despite the fact that I live in a country where violence and crime are sadly all too common, I find it strange when I hear of sexism and anything worse occurring within the sanctity of our hobby. Generally I view roleplayers as _good_ guys through my rose-coloured glasses. I think it might have something to do with how small the roleplaying community is over here compared to the States. My city has only recently been blessed with an annual fancom.
> 
> So, I find I cannot relate to stories such as these when I hear them. And it is not like we are so small that we don't have female roleplayers - I have one in each of my games and they are not wives or girlfriends of either of the rest of the group.



Yeah, my impression of people who share my hobby is that they are more or less just like anybody else, but with more dice rolling.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO

Two honest, genuine questions:

1 - does it generate revenue for anyone, anywhere when people post comments?

2 - discussing religion / politics is not permitted, but this is - huh?


----------



## VengerSatanis

jimmifett said:


> Lets see, the frothing fanatics that got the tongue in cheek make fun of everyone involved card game based on gamergate removed from rpgnow for wrongthink.
> 
> 
> Then there were more frothing fanatics that tried everything they could to get that villains to defeat supplement for a heroic game axed from rpg now even tho it was properly rated adult.
> 
> Apparently, some believe you cant vote with your own dollar.
> 
> There was the ludicrous teardown of the new vampire beta by frothing fanatics misconstruing it.
> 
> And, apparently now, some person that has a personal vendetta against Fannon.
> 
> Thats just the hobby game insustry.
> 
> In IT, you have a group that organized a plot to get linus torvalds alone so they could claim he sexually harassed.
> 
> In Comics, there was recently a group of industry insiders that plotted in a facebook group to corner an idealogical opponent of theres at a con and harass him in an attempt to make him get violent so they could have him arrested and labeled as having dangerous ptsd from his military service. The convo was leaked to him, he revealed it and they backed down and tried to cover tracks.
> 
> How’s that as a sample?




Just to give everyone a little background and get my personal bias out of the way...

Sean Patrick Fannon seemed like a "frothing fanatic" to me when he was trashing *Alpha Blue*.  At least *Alpha Blue* is openly sleazy.  It doesn't hide what it is or lurk in the shadows.  

Below is a comment I made on Tenkar's Tavern on the subject of SPF over a year ago.  Tried to google direct quotes that he made, but couldn't come up with anything... if anyone can find some, let me know or reply to my post with links please.



> Venger Satanis September 2, 2016 at 11:00 AM
> 
> Sean Patrick Fannon was one of the few who chimed in (on the side of censorship) when Alpha Blue was temporarily banned from OBS. He rhetorically asked what the hell was wrong with me and compared the "rape fantasy" I was selling to horse manure in a donut shop. Furthermore, he stated that content like Alpha Blue should be forcibly removed from RPG retailers like OBS so it can only be sold through a porn site.
> 
> So, yeah...  that guy.




Anyway, it doesn't look good for Sean Patrick Fannon based on what I've read, but the real proof in the pudding will reveal itself (if and) when more accusers come forward.  Assuming they have something to say, I hope their stories will be regarded without hostility.

*VS*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

HawaiiSteveO said:


> 2 - discussing religion / politics is not permitted, but this is - huh?




Topics like this are given more leeway because itbdirectly involves our shared hobby.


----------



## TreChriron

yardornate said:


> Those women shared their stories for a reason, and in the interest of protecting their own anonymity, I doubt we'll ever hear them express their opinions and feelings on this thread or on Fannon's responses.  None of these posts seem to indicate that he's had the opportunity to actually speak to those women and address their concerns/own his part about what occurred.
> 
> I can only hope that behind the scenes they are actually addressing this as individuals and encouraging a culture of communication - even when it's about a profoundly unpleasant and uncomfortable topic.






Elfcrusher said:


> Are you saying that allegations of egregious behavior cannot be reported unless they can first be _proven_?  It sure seems like it.
> 
> ...
> 
> But a gag order on unproven allegations is clearly just going to _encourage_ vile behavior.




No.

I know I type a lot when I get angry and the walls of text can get mind numbing. My apologies.

We should keep talking about sexual harassment. However, burning specific people is only going to create a hostile environment. One in which BOTH victims and reformed perpetrators will be reluctant to share. SPF's alleged misconduct hardly rises to the punishment being leveraged against him. ENWorld has a lot of clout. I ton of visitors. This site has the power to make or break someone. That power is being used for personal gain.

This could have been a teaching moment. Where, without mention of WHO was involved, stories could have been shared. When those stories are personal, it's easier to empathize with people. The goal here should be to change the behavior of men who think it's OK to behave this way. You catch a lot more bees with honey. By instead going on a crusade to PUNISH the perpetrators, CH is acting as a judge. Don't be confused by the nature of this enterprise. Yes it's a private business. But it's reach, its influence in this space is more significant than any public institution involved in our hobby. This will cease to be a community and instead be an echo chamber for "the in crowd" who toe a line.

My anger involves the motivations here. Chris Helton is not reporting on this because he cares about sexual harassment. He's reporting on it because he craves the limelight. This is a tabloid piece. He is pursuing the cause-dejour because he wants attention. His behavior over the last 12-18 months has went from reasonable enthusiast journalist to wild-eyed fanatic. My beef is with him, this hit piece, and the obvious personal motivation to sensationalize the subject matter for personal gain. My other beef is with Morrus, who continues to provide his platform as a weapon for said fanatic. This was about clicks. If it bleeds, it leads.

I am NOT suggesting people don't come forward. You should report harassment and abuse! We should listen and believe and help them pursue justice. Not on ENWorld, but in real life. Victims need a support network. Just the process of reporting such crimes, the gathering of evidence, the investigation itself can be harrowing and intimidating. We can do far more by being there for victims than chasing after "perverts on the intertubes".

I am opposed to this method and I question the motivations of the people using this method. There are simply more substantial and more constructive ways to raise awareness, support victims and enact positive change.


----------



## Obryn

HawaiiSteveO said:


> Two honest, genuine questions:
> 
> 1 - does it generate revenue for anyone, anywhere when people post comments?
> 
> 2 - discussing religion / politics is not permitted, but this is - huh?



This is neither religion nor politics. It is about the (alleged) behavior of a well-known RPG industry figure and (former) blogger for this very site.



TreChriron said:


> My anger involves the motivations here. Chris Helton is not reporting on this because he cares about sexual harassment. He's reporting on it because he craves the limelight. This is a tabloid piece. He is pursuing the cause-dejour because he wants attention. His behavior over the last 12-18 months has went from reasonable enthusiast journalist to wild-eyed fanatic. My beef is with him, this hit piece, and the obvious personal motivation to sensationalize the subject matter for personal gain.



You keep saying this as if it's an established fact. Why should we doubt his motives?


----------



## Sunseeker

Obryn said:


> You keep saying this as if it's an established fact. Why should we doubt his motives?




And, reasonably speaking, if Chris' quality has dropped over the last 12-18 months, this should be demonstratable.  Articles would show a notable decline, an increase in fanatical commentary, paired with an increase in revenue or visits or something along those lines.  I mean, those are @_*TreChriron*_s claims.  And it's not like this sort of claim is unprecedented within the media community, we've all seen how news stations over the last decade or more have slowly turned from more traditional "news" pieces to more sensationalist stories.  So TreChrirons claims aren't improbable, but they _do_ require more than just _claims_.

Because it's kinda farcical to call someone out for sensationalist muck-raking...with sensationalist much-raking.  

Perhaps we should start questioning TreChrirons motivations for being so upset?  What does he gain from acting in this manner?  What is his personal stake in it?  What agenda is he pushing that would benefit from the way he is posting here?


----------



## Lloyd Ritchey

Oh look, another person being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Clearly it's time to do away with due process (that's just a right wing dog whistle for rape apology!) and just get down to the thirsty work of a proper witch hunt!  Nothing feels so awesome as unearned moral righteousness!


----------



## Doug McCrae

TreChriron said:


> You catch a lot more bees with honey.



If that's true, why aren't you applying that principle in your efforts to persuade Chris Helton and Morrus? Why are you calling Chris a "fanatic", "unhinged", and saying he "craves the limelight"? Why are you claiming Morrus has been "brainwashed"?

Bizarrely you seem to think only one group of people deserve to be treated with kindness - sexual harassers.


----------



## Dire Bare

Lloyd Ritchey said:


> Oh look, another person being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Clearly it's time to do away with due process (that's just a right wing dog whistle for rape apology!) and just get down to the thirsty work of a proper witch hunt!  Nothing feels so awesome as unearned moral righteousness!




Oh look, another sock puppet account created today with a total post count of "1"!


----------



## Ramaster

Lloyd Ritchey said:


> Oh look, another person being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Clearly it's time to do away with due process (that's just a right wing dog whistle for rape apology!) and just get down to the thirsty work of a proper witch hunt!  Nothing feels so awesome as unearned moral righteousness!




Said the user with A SINGLE post on this whole site.

Edit: Well, I got ninja'ed by a bear. Who would have thought?


----------



## billd91

Dire Bare said:


> Oh look, another sock puppet account created today with a total post count of "1"!




I'm actually willing to entertain the idea that not all of these are sock puppets. There may be some elements of a cross-board invasion to circle the wagons around a bro and protect him from the big, bad women who are statistically unlikely to issue any claims, much less false ones. 'Cuz, you know, backlashes aren't going to happen by themselves.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO

Obryn said:


> This is neither religion nor politics. It is about the (alleged) behavior of a well-known RPG industry figure and (former) blogger for this very site.




My point is that how do we *know* that another person has dignity & worth, and deserves to be treated with respect without bringing religion / politics into it..?


----------



## Obryn

HawaiiSteveO said:


> My point is that how do we *know* that another person has dignity & worth, and deserves to be treated with respect without bringing religion / politics into it..?


----------



## Doug McCrae

[MENTION=5046]TreChriron[/MENTION] I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. You think Chris's article is aimed primarily at sexual harassers. That it's an effort to change their behaviour and you're perplexed as to why it isn't being nicer to its target audience.

Well, you're wrong. Sexual harassers are not the target audience and that's a very strange thing to think. It's a news article aimed at the wider community of roleplayers.

Those who would particularly benefit from it are those who are considering whether to buy products sold by Fannon or Pinnacle Entertainment Group, and anyone who associates with Fannon, especially women. This article gives women information they can use to help protect themselves from sexual harassment.


----------



## Lloyd Ritchey

New user =/= sock puppet
Also, I have no idea if SPF is a creep or not.
I make no presumption as to his innocence or guilt.
A LOT of you ass clowns aren't using your brains, but are instead engaged in virtue signaling. You don't know anymore than i do what is the truth of the matter.
Also, your replies to my initial hyperbolic point _weren't even arguments_.
So use your brains, step up your game, and be a bit skeptical of what is literally _hearsay_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ramaster said:


> Said the user with A SINGLE post on this whole site.
> 
> Edit: Well, I got ninja'ed by a bear. Who would have thought?




A surprisingly large number of people, it turns out.

View attachment 97017


----------



## LazarusKane

billd91 said:


> I'm actually willing to entertain the idea that not all of these are sock puppets. There may be some elements of a cross-board invasion to circle the wagons around a bro and protect him from the big, bad women who are statistically unlikely to issue any claims, much less false ones. 'Cuz, you know, backlashes aren't going to happen by themselves.




Or they are simply lurkers of (/on?) this site who think: "Now is the point to offer my opinion!"
 I´m someone who is visiting this site for a long long time and posted the first time last month... 

PS: To speak in a general way I know the phenomenon "sock puppets" exist, but I find it rather silly and disrespectfull of ignoring posted arguments and instead only writing assumptions of "Sock Puppet!".


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Morrus said:


> I've never seen that happen in my life. That isn't a real problem, and certainly isn't a classic situation.




It never happened to you, but that doesn't mean it never happened to anybody. Some girls can be mean, I know I've met a few of them, none of them ever did that to me, but that doesn't mean it could never happen. I guess in the 1980s, when I was actively dating, it just never occurred to them that rather than just saying no, they could accuse me of sexual harassment. I have asked out a lot of girls when I was in high school and college, it requires a bit of persistence to get some results, because the fact is the burden usually falls on the guy to ask the girl out, girls will rarely ever ask a guy out. Too much persistence could be interpreted as "sexual harassment". Sexual harassment could be things said rather than things done, that means it is somebody's judgement over somebody else's whether it has occurred, or otherwise the guy was just being overly persistent in asking some girl out on a date. So I guess the rule should be, ask the girl out only once, and if she says no, never ask her out again, just to be safe. Cause girls never change their minds, they never break up with their boyfriends and become suddenly available.


----------



## Morrus

Lloyd Ritchey said:


> A LOT of you ass clowns aren't using your brains, but are instead engaged in virtue signaling.




Joining a site to call the users “ass clowns” is a pretty quick way to thrown out. Goodbye.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Elfcrusher said:


> So, what we're weighing is protection for women (from harassment and assault) vs. protection for men (from false accusations).  Both are important.
> 
> There are hundreds...thousands...of cases of women not just being 'harassed' in the sense of being flirted with, but assaulted, raped, traumatized, humiliated, and careers derailed.
> 
> Meanwhile there are cases of women falsely accusing men (c.f Tawana Brawley) but they are few and far between.
> 
> In other words, the "classic situation" you describe is "classic" only in the sense that misogynists invoke it as a bogeyman to silence women.
> 
> The truly classic situation is that a woman is assaulted by a man who gets away with it because there's no incontrovertible "proof" that it happened.
> 
> TL;DR: You are arguing that men are more important than women, because allowing justice for a woman has a slight risk of becoming an injustice for a man.




Just saying we can't allow witch hunts, we can't take women on simply that their word that it happened, we need some kind of proof, otherwise some women will get the idea that they can accuse anybody of sexual harassment, anybody they don't like, maybe a boyfriend that broke up with them for another girl, maybe they have their eyes on some rich guy, some celebrity, and they get together with their friends and decide to get a big payoff by accusing him of sexual harassment. Women do talk to one another after all. If somebody is rich or famous and well known to the public, the chances of a false accusation by women with dollar signs in their eyes go way up! We can't dismiss that possibility, that is why we need proof. If it is difficult for a woman to supply proof that they were sexually harassed, too bad. We can't lower the burden of proof on them just because they are women.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lloyd Ritchey said:


> New user =/= sock puppet
> Also, I have no idea if SPF is a creep or not.
> I make no presumption as to his innocence or guilt.
> A LOT of you ass clowns aren't using your brains, but are instead engaged in virtue signaling. You don't know anymore than i do what is the truth of the matter.
> Also, your replies to my initial hyperbolic point _weren't even arguments_.
> So use your brains, step up your game, and be a bit skeptical of what is literally _hearsay_.





This isn't about whether or not he's guilty, it's about whether or not it's ok to print a story about before it's determined whether or not he is guilty.

Too many so-called "men" think that this should all be kept quiet until the allegations are somehow proven.  Yeah, right.  That's worked GREAT for harassers and rapists for decades...centuries...because a) it's really hard to prove, and b) it's very easy for organizations to sweep the whole thing under the rug to avoid bad publicity.

Yeah, this guy might be innocent.  In which case it sucks for him.  But clearly the policy of keeping these things private while they are "investigated" has meant that 99% of the time there's no real investigation.  It seems that the only things organizations take seriously are bad publicity.

So, really, you are the one that needs to use a brain.  You don't even seem to understand what's going on.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Thomas Bowman said:


> Just saying we can't allow witch hunts, we can't take women on simply that their word that it happened, we need some kind of proof, otherwise some women will get the idea that they can accuse anybody of sexual harassment, anybody they don't like, maybe a boyfriend that broke up with them for another girl, maybe they have their eyes on some rich guy, some celebrity, and they get together with their friends and decide to get a big payoff by accusing him of sexual harassment. Women do talk to one another after all. If somebody is rich or famous and well known to the public, the chances of a false accusation by women with dollar signs in their eyes go way up! We can't dismiss that possibility, that is why we need proof. If it is difficult for a woman to supply proof that they were sexually harassed, too bad. We can't lower the burden of proof on them just because they are women.




No, you are just completely wrong.  

We can't (or shouldn't) fire men from their jobs on mere allegations.  We shouldn't imprison them on mere allegations.

But apparently, based on history, the only thing that actually produces investigations is public accusations.  Sucks that that's the case, but it is.


----------



## TreChriron

{snip mistakingly quoted stuff}



Doug McCrae said:


> ... Bizarrely you seem to think only one group of people deserve to be treated with kindness - sexual harassers.




You are incorrect (to parrot our fearless leader Morrus...). 

I think everyone deserves to be treated with kindness, until they are unkind. SPF is being accused of sexual harassment, but has not been convicted of it. Well, expect for here. So, you are being unkind to someone who was allegedly unkind.

I read the article. I watched Chris Helton and Morrus be unkind to SPF. I watched them use this platform as a weapon against him.

Therefore, I am being unkind to people I WITNESSED being unkind. It is not hearsay. Also, my protest has considerably less impact on Chris and Morrus than this article has on SPF. They should have handled this differently. As long as I can, I'm going to protest this crap.


----------



## Sunseeker

Thomas Bowman said:


> Just saying we can't allow witch hunts, we can't take women on simply that their word that it happened, we need some kind of proof, otherwise some women will get the idea that they can accuse anybody of sexual harassment, anybody they don't like, maybe a boyfriend that broke up with them for another girl, maybe they have their eyes on some rich guy, some celebrity, and they get together with their friends and decide to get a big payoff by accusing him of sexual harassment. Women do talk to one another after all. If somebody is rich or famous and well known to the public, the chances of a false accusation by women with dollar signs in their eyes go way up! We can't dismiss that possibility, that is why we need proof. If it is difficult for a woman to supply proof that they were sexually harassed, too bad. We can't lower the burden of proof on them just because they are women.




This is garbage.  Your argument is garbage.  

Your argument is that women are liars and we cant trust them because _some_ *might* have ulterior motives.

What is this garbage?  Do you and the people who promote this garbage get it downloaded directly into your brains and dawn?  Because it's all the _same_ garbage.  It's not like this garbage is uniquely _your_ garbage, it's the same garbage that gets spewed out of all the dumpster talking heads on TV.

Seriously, I'm done with this dumpster fire.  #SayHelloToMyLittleIgnoreList


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Thomas Bowman said:


> Just saying we can't allow witch hunts, we can't take women on simply that their word that it happened, we need some kind of proof, otherwise some women will get the idea that they can accuse anybody of sexual harassment, anybody they don't like, maybe a boyfriend that broke up with them for another girl, maybe they have their eyes on some rich guy, some celebrity, and they get together with their friends and decide to get a big payoff by accusing him of sexual harassment. Women do talk to one another after all. If somebody is rich or famous and well known to the public, the chances of a false accusation by women with dollar signs in their eyes go way up! We can't dismiss that possibility, that is why we need proof. If it is difficult for a woman to supply proof that they were sexually harassed, too bad. We can't lower the burden of proof on them just because they are women.




Again, _actual crime statistics_ show a false reporting rate of under 10%.  False allegations happen, yes, and some have been quite high-profile.  But occasions of this are so rare that using them to justify suppressing news about possible crimes is dropping napalm bombs to hunt mosquitos.

I will also note that the false accusation rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.


----------



## mudbunny

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, _actual crime statistics_ show a false reporting rate of under 10%.  False allegations happen, yes, and some have been quite high-profile.  But occasions of this are so rare that using them to justify suppressing news about possible crimes is dropping napalm bombs to hunt mosquitos.
> 
> I will also note that the false report rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.




Of course not. Because for many people, they understand that murder (to use your example) is wrong, while, according to some people in this thread, harassing women is OK if you are socially awkward or need to get a date.


----------



## Rowdy Scarlett1

Paraxis said:


> Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.
> 
> You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.
> 
> The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.
> 
> [This is almost the exact same comment you made last time you were threadbanned for defending harassment at conventions. This time it's not just a threadban. - Morrus]




Wrong on so many levels....


----------



## TreChriron

@_*shidaku*_ - 

I DO NOT agree with the premise that people can't or shouldn't accuse someone of sexual harassment. I personally believe however, that talking to leadership in the place of the harassment, or the police might be a better course of action than calling The National Enquirer. In the former, I'm likely going to consider you more honest than the latter. Also, if the accusers had brought this up with the convention staff involved, wouldn't it at least have served as a good example as to WHY con runners should have the policies clearly stated? It seems dumb that we have to remind people to act like decent human beings. However, once you do, and they do something terrible, you can boot them.

I question the motivation of the accusers and more importantly the "reporter" because we're reading about it on the new RPG Enquirer instead of from con runners or staff. Again, I believe that a story about "here's the recounting of sexual harassment at BlahBlahBlah con..." followed by an interview with the con runners about how they are going to address sexual harassment in the future would have been much better as a teaching tool. Then, with your clout, help the aggrieved parties to a solution. Whether that be charges, or investigation or just listening. Hell, regardless of guilt, if SPF had the opportunity to apologize directly to the aggrieved, would that not be more closure than this? Then, if all parties agree, pen up an article about what everyone learned in the process. People read it, empathize with the real pain of the harassment, and internalize it. No fire. No vitriol. No attacks. That's doing something. Not tabloid sensationalism. Not drama for clicks. Actual progress. Read SPF's recounting of emails from Chris Helton. That dude was ready to crucify him. He had no intention of gathering facts or doing something to address sexual harassment.

I'm not asking victims to be silent. I'm not making excuses for terrible people so they can do terrible things. I am specifically protesting THIS article and the manner in which THIS particular situation was handled.


----------



## Dire Bare

LazarusKane said:


> Or they are simply lurkers of (/on?) this site who think: "Now is the point to offer my opinion!"
> I´m someone who is visiting this site for a long long time and posted the first time last month...
> 
> PS: To speak in a general way I know the phenomenon "sock puppets" exist, but I find it rather silly and disrespectfull of ignoring posted arguments and instead only writing assumptions of "Sock Puppet!".




You are right. Users with fresh accounts and low post-counts aren't necessarily "sock-puppets" or even "board-crashers", they could simply be lurkers who have finally been motivated to post. I shouldn't have assumed.

But this thread is definitely filled to the brim with sock-puppets and board-crashers, and the vast majority of our new friends who have posted in this thread are defending the sexual harassment of women, regardless of motive or RL identity. And I'm tired. No excuse really, sorry, from now on I'll just stick to adding these fine folks to my ignore list and avoid making assumptions and calling them out.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Certainly, filing a report would be ideal.  However, the psychology and real-world factors leading women (and men) to not report are complex and numerous.  Sometimes, it is as simple as the running of the statute of limitations cutting off prosecution by the time the victim has summoned the courage to come forward.


----------



## Sunseeker

TreChriron said:


> @_*shidaku*_ -
> 
> I DO NOT agree with the premise that people can't or shouldn't accuse someone of sexual harassment. I personally believe however, that talking to leadership in the place of the harassment, or the police might be a better course of action than calling The National Enquirer. In the former, I'm likely going to consider you more honest than the latter. Also, if the accusers had brought this up with the convention staff involved, wouldn't it at least have served as a good example as to WHY con runners should have the policies clearly stated? It seems dumb that we have to remind people to act like decent human beings. However, once you do, and they do something terrible, you can boot them.



This makes me question if you actually _read_ the article, because the article explicitly states that one of the women _did_ take it up with the Con and the Con even talked to Fannon about it and _Fannon himself_ admits that he was indeed spoken to about it.



> I question the motivation of the accusers and more importantly the "reporter" because we're reading about it on the new RPG Enquirer instead of from con runners or staff.



Have you considered that the reason it is _here_ is because A: this is one of the biggest RPG news sites on the net, and B: the accusations span outside of a con (such as email and facebook communications) and C: the victims may not feel the con sufficiently handled things?

People go to the police every day with crimes.  That does not mean the police sufficiently resolve those alleged crimes.  



> Again, I believe that a story about "here's the recounting of sexual harassment at BlahBlahBlah con..." followed by an interview with the con runners about how they are going to address sexual harassment in the future would have been much better as a teaching tool.



Chris makes no mention on _if_ he reached out to these Cons or what their response was.  For all either of us know, he did and was unable to reach them, he reached them and they declined to comment, or he did not.  Any of those could be true.  For you to _assume_ that he did not, is entirely *on you*.  That's YOUR assumption based on YOUR opinion that this article needed "something else".  A "something else" that from the attitude of your prior posts, I would argue would never be enough.  



> Then, with your clout, help the aggrieved parties to a solution. Whether that be charges, or investigation or *just listening*.



By interviewing them, Chris did _exactly that_.  And none of those things are really the place of a reporter.  They _report_ the news.  They don't solve it.



> Hell, regardless of guilt, if SPF had the opportunity to apologize directly to the aggrieved, would that not be more closure than this?



I'm willing to bet that the victims have no desire to hear from Fannon ever again.  Apology or otherwise.  And closure for _who_.  Apologies hoenstly mean nothing, actions do.  If Fannon changes his ways, THAT will be his apology.  THAT will be the closure.



> Then, if all parties agree, pen up an article about what everyone learned in the process. People read it, empathize with the real pain of the harassment, and internalize it. No fire. No vitriol. No attacks. That's doing something. Not tabloid sensationalism. Not drama for clicks. Actual progress. Read SPF's recounting of emails from Chris Helton. That dude was ready to crucify him. He had no intention of gathering facts or doing something to address sexual harassment.



I _did_ read Fannon's post.  He's all over the place.  From patting his back to casting aspersions to remembering then not remembering then commenting in weirdly rules-lawyery fashion.  And I saw no indication of crucifixion or vilification from Chris.  



> I'm not asking victims to be silent. I'm not making excuses for terrible people so they can do terrible things. I am specifically protesting THIS article and the manner in which THIS particular situation was handled.



NO, you have very clearly stated that this is a _common trend_ in Chris Helton's work.  You have stated on _multiple_ occasions that the fault lies _specifically with Chris_.  That he has done this before in an effort to garner views, money and clicks.


----------



## Wicht

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I will also note that the false accusation rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.




Well, in fairness, with murder there is generally a body, which is itself evidence of a kind.


----------



## trancejeremy

Just some random observations

Things like this really aren't witch hunts, because witches (no offense to Prof. Murray) didn't actually exist. Whereas men harassing women do exist

The burden of proof isn't the same as that of a court, because no one is wanting to imprison him. The main goal is to prevent him from harassing women in the future. Does that mean not inviting him to cons? Losing his job? Or him just realizing he should knock it off? That is probably what should be argued.

The other day at work I and a co-worker caught the tail end of a meeting about sexual harassment. My co-worker, who is a very good looking guy, commented to me that many of the things described aren't sexual harassment if the guy is hot enough.  While I am not saying that is true, he certainly believes it to be true. So he often indulges in shady behavior because he believes he can get away with it or it's welcome.   I think this is the same sort of thinking that people in an industry can start believing once they get some success.


----------



## Doug McCrae

TreChriron said:


> Then, with your clout, help the aggrieved parties to a solution.



You seem to think ENWorld is some sort of counselling and reconciliation service. It's not. It's an rpg news outlet. Says so right in the logo.


----------



## jimmifett

Morrus said:


> I've never seen that happen in my life. That isn't a real problem, and certainly isn't a classic situation.




I've been foreman of a jury for a 3-day rape trial for exactly this situation.

Turned out the young girl (girl a), the guy, and another young girl (girl b) were all at party, the 2 girls wanted to hookup, all 3 went to hotel, and guy stayed out in the car until they let him in and they all ordered pizza. The girls then robbed him blind next morning while he was getting them all food at waffle house. Then girl A files false charges to cover up the robbery. Girl B, a friend of guy, on the stand admitted the whole thing was a cover up, that she and girl A robbed guy, and concocted the story.

Needless to say, unanimous jury for acquittal and the guy went free after his name was dragged through the mud.

Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.


----------



## mudbunny

jimmifett said:


> Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.




They happen at about the same rate as other false accusations for other crimes.

Yet, as has been noted elsewhere, you never see handwringing about yellow journalism or witch hunts in those cases.


----------



## Sunseeker

jimmifett said:


> Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.




You mean like, ~<=10% of all reported crimes?

Whereas, _statistically_ 1/4-5 women is going to be sexually assaulted?

So, when you start saying that your concern is about the 1/40-50 possibilities because they are "very common" as opposed to concern about the 1/4-5, we start raising eyebrows, because "very common" seems to define 1/4 or 1/5 _a lot more_ than it defines 1/40 or 1/50.


----------



## LazarusKane

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, _actual crime statistics_ show a false reporting rate of under 10%.  False allegations happen, yes, and some have been quite high-profile.  But occasions of this are so rare that using them to justify suppressing news about possible crimes is dropping napalm bombs to hunt mosquitos.
> 
> I will also note that the false accusation rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.




IMHO the problem is that sexuall harrasement can be *really hard* to prove - or _disprove_.
And so I would have prefered it if the author had waited til there were more proof (and/or consequences) before he posted the name of the accused.
For me it it would have been way more newsworthy that a "known figure of the industry" is accused of harrasement - and that this "New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done" than posting the name of the accused.


----------



## billd91

jimmifett said:


> Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.




Horse and . You paying any attention to actual statistics or studies to back this up or is this just the misogyny talking?


----------



## jimmifett

shidaku said:


> You mean like, ~<=10% of all reported crimes?
> 
> Whereas, _statistically_ 1/4-5 women is going to be sexually assaulted?
> 
> So, when you start saying that your concern is about the 1/40-50 possibilities because they are "very common" as opposed to concern about the 1/4-5, we start raising eyebrows, because "very common" seems to define 1/4 or 1/5 _a lot more_ than it defines 1/40 or 1/50.




Your 20-25% figures for sexual assualt are pure feldercarb, repeatedly debunked, and everyone knows it. Those are rates as bad as or worse than Darfor, and proven to only exist when the definition of sexual assualt is grossly expanded to include things that are not actually sexual assault.


----------



## Sunseeker

jimmifett said:


> Your 20-25% figures for sexual assualt are pure feldercarb, repeatedly debunked, and everyone knows it. Those are rates as bad as or worse than Darfor, and proven to only exist when the definition of sexual assualt is grossly expanded to include things that are not actually sexual assault.




The specific numbers for sexual assault are irrelevent.  You are still saying you are more concerned with the fraction of the fraction, than with the larger fraction.

EX: per the FBI _just_ rape by the revised definition is 53,621 as of 2013.  Since false crime reporting is, as others have said, fairly uniform across the board at about 10%, what you are saying is that you are more concerned with the 5,362 cases of false reporting, than with the over 50 thousand cases of _actual rape_.


----------



## jimmifett

billd91 said:


> Horse and . You paying any attention to actual statistics or studies to back this up or is this just the misogyny talking?




This is why there can't be civil conversations, soon as you disrupt the wagon, you are a labelled misogynist or worse just bc you don't agree with the narrative.

Have fun with this thread, no point when you can't reason with the unreasonable.

This site is really gone down hill the last 5 years, going from great and informative to dumpster fire to tire fire.


----------



## billd91

jimmifett said:


> This is why there can't be civil conversations, soon as you disrupt the wagon, you are a labelled misogynist or worse just bc you don't agree with the narrative.
> 
> Have fun with this thread, no point when you can't reason with the unreasonable.
> 
> This site is really gone down hill the last 5 years, going from great and informative to dumpster fire to tire fire.




I notice there are still no actual statistics or studies being cited.


----------



## Doug McCrae

shidaku said:


> I _did_ read Fannon's post.  He's all over the place.  From patting his back to casting aspersions to remembering then not remembering then commenting in weirdly rules-lawyery fashion.



And the other thing he does in his post is... admit to being a sexual harasser.



> I have been "overly complimentary," using my position of privilege as a male guest, to unintentionally make female attendees uncomfortable. That's not been the case in the last few years, but it's something I recognize was part of my behavior some time ago, and I bring it up regularly when such conversations are engaged.
> 
> ...
> 
> Some, however, will remember my behaviors from years ago and have little difficulty assuming some of this is true.
> Because I have acted inappropriately, many times, in my past. I've leered, male gaze extant, and paid overly-familiar compliments. I've flirted with folks who were just there to be a part of things, not expecting or wanting to be flirted with. I've used my position of privilege to intrude into the emotional and personal space of women I was attracted to. I've had things to say about their appearance, and simply assumed it was OK.
> 
> I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.
> 
> I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing.




This is, quite clearly, an admission of past sexual harassment. He's merely denying some specific, recent, charges of it.

Not only is it an admission, Fannon himself says "We need to call out these behaviors".


----------



## Doug McCrae

jimmifett said:


> This is why there can't be civil conversations, soon as you disrupt the wagon, you are a labelled misogynist or worse just bc you don't agree with the narrative.




The problem is this comment:



> Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.



Why do you say "malicious accusations by women" and not just "malicious accusations"? Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to make malicious accusations than men?

I wouldn't go so far as to say you're a misogynist or even that this is a misogynistic comment but I certainly think it's a sexist comment.


----------



## jimmifett

billd91 said:


> I notice there are still no actual statistics or studies being cited.




I simply no longer wish to communicate with you. Should I take my time to provide legit statistics, you and your ilk will attempt to twist or dismiss them just as shikaku did after I pointed out that his(her?) numbers where factually false.

You are set in your narrative, unwilling to see from any other perspective, and denigrate others that do not agree with you, proving no rational debate can be had.

This thread is no longer worth my attention, and for good measure, I'll just block you and be done with it.

Have a frabjous day.


----------



## Chris Clinch

Jester David said:


> The word of three individuals counts as "very little evidence"?
> How many victims would there need to be? Five? Ten? Twenty?
> 
> What is the cut off point where it becomes acceptable to damaging one person's career?
> 
> # Hearsay is not evidence, like I said to me there is not enough there for me to justify a character assassination, unless I had more proof, that is me, you might not agree but it seems I am not the only one.
> 
> The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. This is not a trial, let alone a criminal one.
> 
> If Human Resources confronts you about about complaints regarding your behaviour, they're going to laugh at requests to confront your accuser. That's pretty much what this is. We're HR for the gaming community.
> ##And sorry but you are wrong, there is case law right here where I work where a complaint was made and a employee wanted to know is accuser and yes, he crushed them in court, so yes if you ask HR has to let you know who the complainant is. Look up Wind VS City of Gastonia.
> 
> Only criminal activities are worth destroying a career? You can be a creep and a jerk and a pervert but as long as you don't shoplift you're a welcome member of the community?
> I don't think so.
> I never said that, read what I said if it was true he should be showed the road, but I would want to see more than a few statements from years ago, with one witness who has issues already, to me that is not enough to pass judgement on anyone.
> 
> So the accusers are liars?
> I never said that either,
> 
> It'd actually be he said, she & she & she said. Because there's three accusers (and were four).
> 
> 
> What type of law did you practice again?
> I still do, before you post you might want to know more than what you read on google before you try a personal attack.
> 
> This makes it seem like we can only deal with creepy guys at cons at the time. That our only action is to eject them from that convention and can't do anything after the fact.
> 
> That's a short term fix. It doesn't prevent repeated behaviour. And it doesn't keep those individuals from finding work.
> 
> 
> Anonymous to us. Because we don't need to know. Not anonymous to the journalist.
> well that might be you, I dont believe everything I read on the internet, #1 I would like to know the person exists, and how do you know like one person has stated they did not have a personal vendetta against him.
> 
> Numerous journalists use anonymous sources. It's common practice.
> But does not mean it is correct.
> 
> Curious how you believe that post without question but have instant doubts of the word of the accusers.
> Why are his statements more believable? How is he more trustworthy?



Again I did not say that, I said I would like more proof before I chimed in, to me it is not enough to justify to me what is a character assassination. Like I said if it happened then see ya, we don't need people being like that, in any social venue, but if it is not true, then how would you feel if that was you?

   I answered most of your statements right under the quotes,


----------



## Eltab

If there is enough evidence to write and publish the article...
- is there also enough evidence to file a Court charge?  (Or several charges, if appropriate)
- is there also enough evidence to post the offender's picture with the article, so we know WHO to avoid?

It's really annoying to find an article, "Look out for Mr. XYZ" but have no way to know which person that is unless he wears a big neon-colored nametag.


----------



## Jester David

Chris Clinch said:


> Hearsay is not evidence, like I said to me there is not enough there for me to justify a character assassination, unless I had more proof, that is me, you might not agree but it seems I am not the only one.



Wha...
What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.

Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.


----------



## Gradine

Jester David said:


> Wha...
> What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.
> 
> Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.




To get more specific, "Hearsay" is "and then I heard him say 'exact words'", which can or cannot be admissible in a court of law depending on any number of factors.

By contrast, "and then he _did_ this" is not only *not* hearsay by any definition, it is also, as you point out, *the very definition of evidential witness testimony.*


----------



## Chris Clinch

Jester David said:


> Wha...
> What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.
> 
> Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.



   well sorry for the format I have a sick child and  I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.


----------



## Gradine

Chris Clinch said:


> well sorry for the format I have a sick child and  I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. _*The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is.*_ In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.




Yes, heaven forbid a journalist engage in _*journalism*_


----------



## Rygar

Doug McCrae said:


> You seem to think ENWorld is some sort of counselling and reconciliation service. It's not. It's an rpg news outlet. Says so right in the logo.




No it isn't.  It's an RPG themed left wing politics site.  

1.  "No Politics" applies only to centrist or conservative opinions and beliefs, left wing politics get articles and hundreds of comments without being held to that standard.
2.  Articles routinely leave our key pieces of information that contradict the left wing position being presented.  If you google the topics for many of the left wing articles here you tend to find a lot of missing information.
3.  Any centrist or conservative terms for left wing activists result in immediate action from moderators, even when not directed at anyone on the site.  All left wing terms for centrists or conservatives are permitted without a word, even when directed at another poster.

This is not an RPG news outlet, if it were, "No Politics" would mean "No Politics" and the articles would be about RPG topics, not left wing political activist topics.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, first week of every month starts with a left wing politics article.  They're on a schedule.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Rygar said:


> It's an RPG themed left wing politics site.



I think there's some truth in what you say, though I'd describe it as an rpg site with a mild left wing bias. The vast majority of content is neutral. It's less left wing than rpg.net, or the r/rpg forum on reddit.


----------



## Guest 6801328

TreChriron said:


> I personally believe however, that talking to leadership in the place of the harassment, or the police might be a better course of action than calling The National Enquirer.




Which part of your brain is failing to register that until very recently men were essentially NEVER held accountable because women did go to the police, or their HR department, or their supervisor, and nobody ever did jack  about it?

Going to the press is apparently the only thing that actually works.


----------



## Obryn

Enworld, bastion of such leftist policies as "hey maybe women shouldn't be harassed out of the hobby" and "it's okay to have gay characters in an RPG, if you want." 

Truly, the next step is to behead the bourgeoisie and hand the means of production over to the proletariat.

Time to pack it up, Morrus. Forums poster Rygar has got you figured out.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Chris Clinch said:


> well sorry for the format I have a sick child and  I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.




So basically, "Until something is proven in a court of law a journalist shouldn't report it, because they might be wrong."

Either that or you're saying that only the victim herself can be the journalist; that if any other journalist reports it, it's just hearsay.

Yes, journalists report things that they "hear".  That's why journalists maintain, or are supposed to maintain, high standards.  So that we trust them.  Of course, if all you ever listen to or read are "news" sources that are just propaganda, it's no wonder you don't actually trust journalists.

As somebody else noted, it's interesting (or "SAD!" as one member of their posse would say) that it's only this one particular issue where a certain sub-group of Neandertals is all up in arms over journalistic standards.  "Pizza shop front for child trafficking ring!" _ No problem, sounds like news. _ "Sandy Hook never happened!"  _I always suspected...._ "Man harasses woman!"  _OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WITHOUT PROOF!_

This whole thread has got me depressed about gaming.  Somehow I thought that gamers were generally dorky but intelligent and decent, but I'm starting to suspect the hobby is permeated with...well...deplorables.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Every now and then I have to sit through some kind of training where I learn about "micro-aggressions" or hear somebody froth at the mouth about "rape culture" and I kind of roll my eyes and think _Oh, please_...

I do think that identity politics and political correctness are what pushed a lot of people to vote for a...hmm, well, insert your own adjectives and nouns there.

Then I read some of the posts in this thread and I think, "Wow, there really are some ignorant slobs out there."


----------



## Sunseeker

Elfcrusher said:


> Then I read some of the posts in this thread and I think, "Wow, there really are some ignorant slobs out there."




Yeah, I mean I get it.  But heck, it's the same reason we've got speed limits and blood-alcohol limits and so on and so forth.  Some bad apples really spoil it for everyone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

jimmifett said:


> Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.



Again, an assertion contrary to the actual crime stats aggregated and analyzed by scholars and US crime enforcement agencies (like the DoJ), which pegs the occupancy of such incidents at 10% or less.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in most analyses, “10% or less” is not considered “very common”.


----------



## Eltab

Rygar said:


> ... "No Politics" applies ...



I've noticed that over time, Morrus has been willing to let more 'Mutual Upcast _Fireball_ Contests' start on his front lawn, and only intervene after the earlier targets retaliate in kind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

jimmifett said:


> Your 20-25% figures for sexual assualt are pure feldercarb, repeatedly debunked, and everyone knows it. Those are rates as bad as or worse than Darfor, and proven to only exist when the definition of sexual assualt is grossly expanded to include things that are not actually sexual assault.




Actually, not really.

One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). A total of 17.7 million women have been victims of these crimes. (Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, *National Institute of Justice* and *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention*, 1998).

The DoJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey estimates run @1/10th that number.  Why?

The NCVS survey focuses on criminal acts, but the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey also asks about instances of forced sex which respondents may or may not regard as crimes.  IOW, the CDC numbers include incidents of non-consensual sexual contact the survey respondents don’t consider criminal, even though they meet the legal definition thereof.

Why don’t they?  The CDC analysts note that “incapacitated rape” accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC’s estimate of rapes reported in their survey.  Those are sexual assaults in which alcohol or other drugs render the victim incapable of consent.  Since victims of such assaults often voluntarily consumed some or all of the intoxicants, they feel responsible for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Eltab said:


> If there is enough evidence to write and publish the article...
> - is there also enough evidence to file a Court charge?  (Or several charges, if appropriate)




Often, no.  In this case?  I don’t know.  And as noted, the window in which to press charges may have passed.



> - is there also enough evidence to post the offender's picture with the article, so we know WHO to avoid?
> 
> It's really annoying to find an article, "Look out for Mr. XYZ" but have no way to know which person that is unless he wears a big neon-colored nametag.




Good question.  Even in the era of social media, not everyone has easily postable pictures out there.  And unless you’re talking about an offender who is a minor, by and large, publishing photos of the accused is pretty de rigeur.  But it isn’t _required_, it is an editorial decision.  Some outlets won’t attach a photo without an actual indictment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

“Hearsay” is a legal term regarding the admissibility of statements into evidence in a court case.  Zero relationship to journalism.

Journalists have their own standards: ideally, they report direct testimony of individuals and/or information supported by 3+ witnesses.  Reporting someone’s accusations that another comitted a criminal act is perfectly legit, even if it cannot be deemed true later down the road.  (In which case, the journalist _should_ report that fact.)


----------



## EthanSental

One of the first bit of advice our marriage counselor gave my wife and I was to not use "You" statements as it tends to set the listener on the defensive to strike back verbally.   Happening a bunch in this thread between various people a they single and an use You at each other.  

Cool it for a bit and moderate ourselves for a change? Thanks!


----------



## Eltab

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Good question. ... And unless you’re talking about an offender who is a minor



a) Thank you.

b) In this instance (the subject of OP article), we aren't.  I'd be more willing to cut an underage awkward teen more slack (having been one myself) because he hasn't had time - I hope - to rack up a string of incidents.  Grown adults get normal slack, and the amount of slack gets shorter and shorter as their trail of incidents gets longer and longer.

I have this mental image of a Convention Guest being told, "Yeah, we heard about your reputation.  We'll let you in, but here's this sweater with a Big Scarlet Letter (instead of the 'con logo); you have to wear it every minute you are on our floor."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There is also the issue of “celebrity “.  In law, prominent persons are essentially deemed to have inserted themselves into the spotlight, and as such, public persons don’t have quite the same privacy protections as private citizens.  Whether one is to be deemed public or private is a matter for a court to decide on an individual basis.

IOW, while the subject of this article may not be high-profile enough to be considered a traditional celebrity, captain of industry, politician, etc., in mainstream society, _within the context of our hobby_ and the media outlets that cover it, he may well be deemed a public figure.


----------



## CubicsRube

EthanSental said:


> One of the first bit of advice our marriage counselor gave my wife and I was to not use "You" statements as it tends to set the listener on the defensive to strike back verbally.   Happening a bunch in this thread between various people a they single and an use You at each other.
> 
> Cool it for a bit and moderate ourselves for a change? Thanks!




I think it's great advice for everyone.

There's enough suffering in the world without our help. We don't beed to add to it.


----------



## DM Magic

This thread is full of garbage opinions. I am ashamed that there are so many men who are still so quick to circle the wagons. Especially now after everything that's been going on.

Hey folks with the garbage opinions -- we see your misogyny. And so do the women in your life.


----------



## Shasarak

DemoMonkey said:


> There are really only 3 choices:
> 
> 1) Always believe the accusers.
> *Result:* Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.
> 
> 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.
> *Result*: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.
> 
> 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all.
> *Result*: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.




Only the Sith deal in absolutes.


----------



## Maul

screwed up my post.  Lol......Wanted to reply with quote.


----------



## Maul

Dire Bare said:


> Noticing that you find a woman attractive, looking at a woman's breasts, butt, or whatever, giving a woman a compliment are not in-and-of-themselves harassing behaviors. But it's all in HOW you look, stare, ogle, leer, and comment that can very much be harassment. There are too many guys who don't get the difference, or don't care to make the difference, and that is a problem.




Exactly.

There.......that's better.


----------



## Particle_Man

Chris Clinch said:


> well sorry for the format I have a sick child and  I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> “Hearsay” is a legal term regarding the admissibility of statements into evidence in a court case.  Zero relationship to journalism.
> 
> Journalists have their own standards: ideally, they report direct testimony of individuals and/or information supported by 3+ witnesses.  Reporting someone’s accusations that another comitted a criminal act is perfectly legit, even if it cannot be deemed true later down the road.  (In which case, the journalist _should_ report that fact.)




I keep thinking that Chris Clinch's 21 years of legal experience have not served him well.  He seems not to see this particular unsubtle distinction between a law court and journalism. Maybe he should have been more of a multi-class character, with 11 years of legal experience and 10 years of journalistic experience?  

By the way, for the poster that was worried about not recognizing Sean Partick Fannon at a convention, you can simply google the name "Sean Patrick Fannon", and then look at the first row of images.  The name is not as common as "John Smith".  Sean Patrick Fannon also currently has a wikipedia page with his picture on it.


----------



## Particle_Man

shidaku said:


> DONT: Pull out the prono you keep on your phone when you think a woman is interested.
> DO: Carry around cute pictures of dogs.




Or cute pictures of cats.  Hamsters are pretty cute too.  Even mice can be cute.


----------



## Umbran

TreChriron said:


> ENWorld has a lot of clout. I ton of visitors. This site has the power to make or break someone.




In theory, perhaps.  In practice, the number of people EN World could break is severely limited.  Only a small number of gaming professionals can be impacted by this site.  But, let us take what you say at face value for a moment.



> My anger involves the motivations here. Chris Helton is not reporting on this because he cares about sexual harassment. He's reporting on it because he craves the limelight.




Okay, now I have a question...

You are very, very big on how accusations on EN World have heavy impact, and can break a person.  And then you make accusations on EN World.  

So, in case I have missed it in the morass of the thread, I will ask - How do you know what Helton cares about?  Upon what do you base your assessment of Helton's motivations?  Presumably, you have a basis stronger than that used in the article, so that you are on moral high ground, yes?  If so, can we please see your evidence?  

If you don't have good evidence, I fear you are engaging in the behavior you decry, which is not exactly a solid rhetorical or ethical position.




> Not on ENWorld, but in real life.




If EN World has the power to "break" a person's real life, that qualifies EN World as being in real life.  




> There are simply more substantial and more constructive ways to raise awareness, support victims and enact positive change.




Your whole position is predicated on words on EN World being substantial - for they are not dangerous if they are not substantial.

It is not sufficient to support victims, because that alone does not stop more people from being victimized.  Making it clear that such behavior is morally unacceptable and will not be tolerated should reduce the incidence of harassment, and that is a positive change.


----------



## Sunseeker

Particle_Man said:


> Or cute pictures of cats.  Hamsters are pretty cute too.  Even mice can be cute.




All those things in the form of memes are also acceptable.


----------



## thom_likes_gaming

I try to be careful about judging without knowing all the facts as well, but in this case we hear both sides, thankfully. His replies give the fairly clear impression of someone who just doesn't get it, doesn't respect (women's?) personal boundaries and space and just won't take no for an answer.
For Pete's sake, he was hitting on a woman in front of her husband, with witnesses backing this up.

I think I understand his type (the kind of guy from an aera where slapping a cute girl on the butt in passing was considered a stylish pickup line) but that's just not a good way to behave.

Thanks for the very balanced article on this.


----------



## Garthanos

shidaku said:


> People go to the police every day with crimes.  That does not mean the police sufficiently resolve those alleged crimes.




Hmmm, the law system was very much designed to avoid accidental conviction of the innocent... and something like 94 percent of all crimes brought to court do not resolve in felony convictions.

We can be pretty confident those that are convicted, were crimes - and far much less so that those who do not were not crimes.


----------



## Garthanos

thom_enworld said:


> I try to be careful about judging without knowing all the facts as well, but in this case we hear both sides, thankfully. His replies give the fairly clear impression of someone who just doesn't get it, doesn't respect (women's?) personal boundaries and space and just won't take no for an answer.
> For Pete's sake, he was hitting on a woman in front of her husband, with witnesses backing this up.




Yuck.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Garthanos said:


> We can be pretty confident those that are convicted, were crimes - and far much less so that those who do not were not crimes.



Welll... sorta.

Beyond the case of the (allegedly) wrongfully convicted pedophiel I mentioned upthread, the more recent studies of our judicial system have been revealing alarming erroneous conviction rates.  Ignoring the demographics of why this happens, we’re seeing that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as once supposed, flawed interrogation techniques can lead to false confessions, bad testimony based on bad science or even criminally malicious expert testimony leads to convictions.  Sometimes, the entire system simply screws things up.

Here in Texas, Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for murdering his 3 children, with an arson coverup.  The testimony for the fire experts was subsequently debunked by further research in arson science.  There was an inquest impaneled to determine whether the man was, in fact, unjustly executed, but Gov. Rick Perry had the comittee dissolved shortly before they were going to deliver their findings.  Those results are sealed, but leakers claim the conclusion was going to be that .texas killed an innocent man.

Gov. Pat Quinn abolished Illinois’ death penalty after 50% of the inmates then sitting on its death row got absolutely exonerated by DNA.

See also The Central Park 5.

Sooo...there are definitely flaws, some we’re just now beginning to recognize and address.


----------



## malcmerlyn

Hello

This is mainly the forum thread reason why I suscribe a user account for this forum.

I am a french GM and blogger, I have interviewed Len Pimentel a few weeks ago and he is a friend of Sean and even vouch for him. 

Since I do not know personnally Sean, where are the proof he has done anything wrong ?


----------



## jdrakeh

For the people defending Mr. Fannon, I want to know how you square the grandiose conspiracy theory _put out there by Mr. Fannon himself_ - that all of these women, across the country, are engaged in a giant conspiracy to ruin his life because he's some kind of super gigolo who declined to sleep with them and they were, subsequently, driven clinically insane by his rejection - with reality. I mean, _really_. That explanation for these accusations is _completely ing unhinged_ (and more than a little egotistic).


----------



## Imaculata

malcmerlyn said:


> Since I do not know personnally Sean, where are the proof he has done anything wrong ?




Several women have come forward and complained about his behavior.


----------



## Sadras

jdrakeh said:


> For the people defending Mr. Fannon, I want to know how you square the grandiose conspiracy theory _put out there by Mr. Fannon himself_ - that all of these women, across the country, are engaged in a giant conspiracy to ruin his life because he's some kind of super gigolo who declined to sleep with them and they were, subsequently, driven clinically insane by his rejection - with reality.




Well that depends, has he provided any details as to which deodorant he was using at the time?


----------



## malcmerlyn

Imaculata said:


> Several women have come forward and complained about his behavior.



It what I have read on rpg.net.  Thanks you.


----------



## malcmerlyn

jdrakeh said:


> For the people defending Mr. Fannon, I want to know how you square the grandiose conspiracy theory _put out there by Mr. Fannon himself_ - that all of these women, across the country, are engaged in a giant conspiracy to ruin his life because he's some kind of super gigolo who declined to sleep with them and they were, subsequently, driven clinically insane by his rejection - with reality. I mean, _really_. That explanation for these accusations is _completely ing unhinged_ (and more than a little egotistic).




Concerning *me*, I do not defend him, I try to ascertain the truth because I am troubled. I have backed at least two Sean's project on KS so I feel concerned.


----------



## jdrakeh

malcmerlyn said:


> Concerning *me*, I do not defend him, I try to ascertain the truth because I am troubled. I have backed at least two Sean's project on KS so I feel concerned.




I am aware that you are just looking for answers, not defending him. There are other posters doing that, though. Vociferously.


----------



## Sadras

For me you have multiple accusers around the country and he is not someone super-important that _required_ an orchestrated social assassination, so the likelihood is that he is guilty of what he is being accused of.



malcmerlyn said:


> Concerning *me*, I do not defend him, I try to ascertain the truth because I am troubled. I have backed at least two Sean's project on KS so I feel concerned.




Now herein lies a far more interesting discussion I think.

Can you separate your appreciation for the work from the artist? 
This recently was a major discussion around our table given the celebs and others that have been outed for their criminal and/or poor conduct. And it is not something new given the Roman Polanski and Woody Allen scandals have been around for years....with high praise being awarded to both for their films. 
Wonder if the same will be afforded to Bill Cosby and the rest. And it doesn't necessary have to stop at the arts, there are other fields people can excel in i.e. sports, sciences...etc


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Can you separate your appreciation for the work from the artist?




Personally, not only can I and have I, but I have found that you often _must._  Artists are people too, and that means they’re capable of much.  And much isn’t necessary nice or admirable.


----------



## Garthanos

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Welll... sorta.
> 
> Beyond the case of the (allegedly) wrongfully convicted pedophiel I mentioned upthread, the more recent studies of our judicial system have been revealing alarming erroneous conviction rates.  Ignoring the demographics of why this happens, we’re seeing that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as once supposed, flawed interrogation techniques can lead to false confessions, bad testimony based on bad science or even criminally malicious expert testimony leads to convictions.  Sometimes, the entire system simply screws things up.




Yeh generalizations always hit a wall ... eye witness are generally considered the worst evidence we have, and there is also bigoted prosecution in the system so no its far from perfect.


----------



## jasper

There is no burden of proof but.

...There is a long and untenable policy of harassment at conventions that stretches back to science fiction and fantasy fandom in the 1960s. Atlanta's Dragon*Con has been a lightning rod in the discussions about safety at geeky conventions after one of the convention's founders was arrested and pled guilty to three charges of molestation. We .....
Okay this is bad paragraph. The only con I know that stretches back to the 60s is Worldcon. Aka the same con which turn a blind eye to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley#Child_sex_abuse_allegations and Walter Breen's activites. Since he only mentions DragonCon (what started in 87) and Paizo Con..
There is no burden of proof he has a beef with these cons but I get what did a poster say... hmm
A. A creepy feeling from him. So I just going have say he needed to mention more cons OR A LEAST WORLD CON WHICH ALLOW A SEXUAL PREDATOR almost every year except for banning him in 63.

Does sexual harassment exists. YES. Do some people falsely claim it YES. What do I do? I listen, try to find more facts, and then decide .


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Elfcrusher said:


> So basically, "Until something is proven in a court of law a journalist shouldn't report it, because they might be wrong."
> 
> Either that or you're saying that only the victim herself can be the journalist; that if any other journalist reports it, it's just hearsay.
> 
> Yes, journalists report things that they "hear".  That's why journalists maintain, or are supposed to maintain, high standards.  So that we trust them.  Of course, if all you ever listen to or read are "news" sources that are just propaganda, it's no wonder you don't actually trust journalists.[
> 
> As somebody else noted, it's interesting (or "SAD!" as one member of their posse would say) that it's only this one particular issue where a certain sub-group of Neandertals is all up in arms over journalistic standards.  "Pizza shop front for child trafficking ring!" _ No problem, sounds like news. _ "Sandy Hook never happened!"  _I always suspected...._ "Man harasses woman!"  _OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WITHOUT PROOF!_



False reporting is a big problem, it is the latest weapon, it has an effect. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty for a reason, it is not there to protect actual criminals but to protect you and me from false charges and the public reaction to those false charges.



> This whole thread has got me depressed about gaming.  Somehow I thought that gamers were generally dorky but intelligent and decent, but I'm starting to suspect the hobby is permeated with...well...deplorables.



The stereotype is that we "dorky" gamers aren't very good around women, if we try to ask a girl out, if a girl really doesn't like us, she can point a finger and claim sexual harassment, that is a very bad result. Since the guy is the one who asks out the girl and the girl simply says yes or no or claims sexual harassment, then us guys are particularly vulnerable to false charges of sexual harassment. Women aren't so vulnerable because the guy usually makes the first move. The girl has the luxury of having a guy do the approaching, and she gets to say yes or no, all the girl has to do is look pretty and attract the guy. if the guy does not make the first move, nothing happens, he doesn't get the girl, somebody else who takes the risk of sexual harassment charges does! Do you see my point?


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Sadras said:


> For me you have multiple accusers around the country and he is not someone super-important that _required_ an orchestrated social assassination, so the likelihood is that he is guilty of what he is being accused of.
> 
> 
> 
> Now herein lies a far more interesting discussion I think.
> 
> Can you separate your appreciation for the work from the artist?
> This recently was a major discussion around our table given the celebs and others that have been outed for their criminal and/or poor conduct. And it is not something new given the Roman Polanski and Woody Allen scandals have been around for years....with high praise being awarded to both for their films.
> Wonder if the same will be afforded to Bill Cosby and the rest. And it doesn't necessary have to stop at the arts, there are other fields people can excel in i.e. sports, sciences...etc




We need to apply a uniform standard of proof to everyone, having multiple accusers is not proof, multiple accusers can talk to one another to get their stories straight, and this doesn't just have to happen to important people that are in the news. Defining who is important and who is not is in the eye of the beholder, if someone is trying to smear someone else's reputation, then to that someone, he is important enough to do it to, like for instance a competitor in the Role Playing Game industry, if you want to sell your product and to get rid of a competitor, you can either produce a better product than he does, or you can find a bunch of women and ask them to make false claims of sexual harassment against him, then presumably people won't want to by his game, because they will consider him to be a creep. It is one of those underhanded tactics that don't produce a superior product in the game market. It is easier to undermine your competitor with gossip, than to out compete him, and all of us gamers suffer because of that.


----------



## Imaculata

Sadras said:


> Can you separate your appreciation for the work from the artist?
> This recently was a major discussion around our table given the celebs and others that have been outed for their criminal and/or poor conduct. And it is not something new given the Roman Polanski and Woody Allen scandals have been around for years....with high praise being awarded to both for their films.
> Wonder if the same will be afforded to Bill Cosby and the rest. And it doesn't necessary have to stop at the arts, there are other fields people can excel in i.e. sports, sciences...etc




Reruns of the Cosby show are going to be super awkward to watch now...


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Thomas Bowman

jdrakeh said:


> For the people defending Mr. Fannon, I want to know how you square the grandiose conspiracy theory _put out there by Mr. Fannon himself_ - that all of these women, across the country, are engaged in a giant conspiracy to ruin his life because he's some kind of super gigolo who declined to sleep with them and they were, subsequently, driven clinically insane by his rejection - with reality. I mean, _really_. That explanation for these accusations is _completely ing unhinged_ (and more than a little egotistic).




I don't know him, if the women got actual proof, then they got him, not just their word that it happened. If they could record it say with a cell phone or something then they got proof. If Mr. Fannon is presenting a pattern of behavior, he will presumably do it again, and if the women are prepared, they can make a recording of him doing it and convict him, but it must be more than their word as a woman that he sexually harassed them. Having multiple accusations may increase the chances that he is actually doing it, but that still doesn't count as proof. If he is actually harassing so many women, then the next woman who is being harassed can record it with her phone and use the recording as evidence. The standard of proof needs to be high, because women can and do lie. The severity of the crime does not lower the standard of proof. We shouldn't be lowering the bar for proof just because women are supposedly weak and vulnerable. It was women after all, vulnerable women, that initiated the Salem witch trials which resulted in the deaths of innocent people. We don't need the modern equivalent of witch hunting going on today.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Thomas Bowman

lowkey13 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Really, the real worry in all of this is that gaming companies will be hiring lots of women to make false accusations against male game designers for competitive advantage.
> 
> And then we will enter another great recession because instead of using money productively, companies will only be hiring more and more women to fling false accusations.
> 
> And then humanity will cease to exist, because women won't need men anymore, since they are all being paid to slander men, and there will be no more babies.
> 
> And then, um, PROFIT!




That is what I am saying without the exaggeration of the hyperbole. If companies use underhanded tricks to undermine their competitors, those resources won't go into producing superior products that we can use. What I am asking for is honest competition and no tricks! It costs money to hire those women and get them to make false accusations, that money could be going in to paying game designers instead, which would you rather have?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Thomas Bowman

lowkey13 said:


> Dude.
> 
> Really?




Women are human beings just like men are, they can lie just like men do. We shouldn't automatically assume their word is golden just because they are pretty women. We may want to believe those pretty women, as men who want to date them, but as men, we could be their next victims if they are making false accusations. Maybe you don't care about their last victim, as they may be competition for us getting a date with them, but what a girl can do to the last guy, she can do to us. Women have equal capacity for dishonesty as do men, doesn't matter if they are pretty or attractive looking to us, we have to keep that in mind.


----------



## Sadras

Imaculata said:


> Reruns of the Cosby show are going to be super awkward to watch now...




Exactly, yet praise is still lauded on Polanski (a most probably pedophile who got caught earlier on) and people enjoy his movies just fine now without any awkwardness.

So, the problem with Bill Cosby is that he got caught and outed after all this artistry and thus was allowed to pursue his criminal activity for a lot longer. If he had followed Polanksi's journey it would have served him better. What a hot mess.


----------



## Sadras

Imaculata said:


> Reruns of the Cosby show are going to be super awkward to watch now...




Exactly, yet praise is still lauded on Polanski (in all likelihood a pedophile who got caught earlier on) and people enjoy his movies just fine now without any awkwardness.

So, the problem with Bill Cosby is that he got caught and outed after all this artistry and thus was allowed to pursue his criminal activity for a lot longer. If he had followed Polanksi's journey it would have served him better. What a hot mess.


----------



## caljai

**I do not condone harassment of any kind**


I'd like to point out a few issues I have with this thread, please.

First, the editing of this thread is of poor quality. It seems as though no proof reading was done or was done poorly, to leave me wondering about the validity of this thread.

Second, I'm not certain to which country this thread writer originates from, however ...in the United States there is a crime called Libel (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation). Since NONE of these allegations have been proven in a court of law, then this entire thread is Libel (if EN has a legal team... you may be advised to remove the thread) and again leaves me wondering about the validity of this thread.

Last, this thread was aimed one-sided! I have been to many Cons throughout my life and I have had encounters with women (and men) who harassed me or bordered on harassment. I have also recently been harassed because of my sex and color and witnessed signs put up that were NOT inclusive to my sex and color (white/male). Why didn't this thread talk about those instances? Why didn't this thread talk about specific instances with any other accused? This thread seemed to single out only ONE person and his ALLEGED actions (though eluded to the possibility of others without citations). Because of this singled out Allegation, I again have to wonder to the validity of this thread??

Feel free to ban me, because I have approached the thread with facts and law. Feel free to ban me despite my first amendment right.
And of course, feel free to ban me because we disagree.

Or...you can make the intelligent decision and leave the post up and not ban me...and allow for discourse among the group.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Elfcrusher said:


> Which part of your brain is failing to register that until very recently men were essentially NEVER held accountable because women did go to the police, or their HR department, or their supervisor, and nobody ever did jack  about it?
> 
> Going to the press is apparently the only thing that actually works.




Putting innocent people behind bars doesn't rectify what occurred in the past. The standards of proof is the same whether the accuser is a man or a woman, and besides even in the past, when a woman made an accusation, sometimes people were hung for being witches, the authorities took the word of those women seriously and accepted their word that the accused were witches and hung them accordingly.

In the past women didn't have the same rights as they do today, but men were still protective of them. If you were a man living in the 1600s, and your wife accuses someone of sexual harassment, you are going to get angry at the accused person and accept your wife's word over his own. You can't say women weren't listened to, as people did hang based on the word of women.


----------



## Sadras

double post


----------



## Sadras

Thomas Bowman said:


> We need to apply a uniform standard of proof to everyone, having multiple accusers is not proof, multiple accusers can talk to one another to get their stories straight, and this doesn't just have to happen to important people that are in the news. Defining who is important and who is not is in the eye of the beholder, if someone is trying to smear someone else's reputation, then to that someone, he is important enough to do it to, like for instance a competitor in the Role Playing Game industry, if you want to sell your product and to get rid of a competitor, you can either produce a better product than he does, or you can find a bunch of women and ask them to make false claims of sexual harassment against him, then presumably people won't want to by his game, because they will consider him to be a creep. It is one of those underhanded tactics that don't produce a superior product in the game market. It is easier to undermine your competitor with gossip, than to out compete him, and all of us gamers suffer because of that.




Yes anything is possible. 

But this is how I see it (and I admit it is not perfect), but we have multiple women from DIFFERENT conventions.
Then we have an Enworld poster who admits she knows him and *from my perspective* doesn't necessarily write a glowing piece about him as she continued to describe him as _growing in character_ (paraphrasing here due to laziness) multiple times. If your own friend cannot vouch for you.... 

I dunno but that Enworld poster I feel did more harm than the original article. If the article was the dagger that post was the poison. That is how I see it.

And once again yes, that Enworld poster could also be lying. But all this to get SPF, really?


----------



## Sadras

caljai said:


> Last, this thread was aimed one-sided! I have been to many Cons throughout my life and I have had encounters with women (and men) who harassed me or bordered on harassment. I have also recently been harassed because of my sex and color and witnessed signs put up that were NOT inclusive to my sex and color (white/male). Why didn't this thread talk about those instances? Why didn't this thread talk about specific instances with any other accused?




Feel free to to create another thread to discuss how you were harassed and about others that were accused. Usually the OP determines the course of the conversation.

EDIT: I'm not versed in law, but people often discuss the allegations of persons before they stand trial and are found guilty or not guilty on various media platforms (forums, twitter, fb...etc). Are you calling that all libel?


----------



## Jester David

Sadras said:


> Can you separate your appreciation for the work from the artist?
> This recently was a major discussion around our table given the celebs and others that have been outed for their criminal and/or poor conduct. And it is not something new given the Roman Polanski and Woody Allen scandals have been around for years....with high praise being awarded to both for their films.
> Wonder if the same will be afforded to Bill Cosby and the rest. And it doesn't necessary have to stop at the arts, there are other fields people can excel in i.e. sports, sciences...etc



It's tricky as there's two factors at play. 
You have the desire to appreciate art for what it is. But you also have the factor of giving the artists money by consuming their art. When you go to a Polanski or Allen film or Stream it, you're giving them money. You're directly supporting the abuser. 

It's easier with someone like H.P. Lovecraft. Who was an unapologetic racist. But you can read his books without supporting him or condoning his ideas because the dude is dead. Ditto Shakespeare, who left his wife and young daughter. But is now also dead. 
You have more room to appreciate the good and ignore the bad (in the art).



Imaculata said:


> Reruns of the Cosby show are going to be super awkward to watch now...



I'm not sure many channels continue to air that. 
I know Malcolm-Jamal Warner was talking about the Cosby news as taking money from his pocket by ending re-runs. 

(But the tarnishing of Cliff Huxtable does make me sad.)

Maybe when Cosby has passed we can look back at the good his did and ignore—if not forgive—the horror.



Sadras said:


> Exactly, yet praise is still lauded on Polanski (in all likelihood a pedophile who got caught earlier on) and people enjoy his movies just fine now without any awkwardness.
> 
> So, the problem with Bill Cosby is that he got caught and outed after all this artistry and thus was allowed to pursue his criminal activity for a lot longer. If he had followed Polanksi's journey it would have served him better. What a hot mess.



A lot of people feel uncomfortable with Polanski. Or, as you say, are able to separate the art from the artists. Or view it as a one-time event rather than a lifetime of abuse.


----------



## caljai

Sadras said:


> Feel free to to create another thread to discuss how you were harassed and about others that were accused. Usually the OP determines the course of the conversation.




Unlike the writer and editor of this thread, I have no desire to accuse someone or someone's of harassment without proof. I don't have proof of the harassment and I don't have proof of how I felt about the harassment. So, starting a thread would be counter-productive! I simply wanted to make people aware that harassment can and has gone both ways. And "if" we are serious about wanting to stop harassment...then we must be willing to talk about every side of harassment!

As far as your edit goes...

Yes, you are not versed well in law. You are correct that many people discuss allegations on websites and the like...however, many times there are lawsuits that follow and are settled or won by the person being libeled. Because it is against the law (in the US). It is one thing to discuss the "possibility" of an action...however it is completely different to make statements of fact. In this thread on multiple occasions, the writer doesn't just imply the possibility of harassment but actually accused the person of harassment and that is a big no-no, you can discuss an Allegation...you cannot state as fact a crime of harassment without it being Libel (assuming that no crime of harassment has been committed)!


----------



## billd91

Thomas Bowman said:


> The stereotype is that we "dorky" gamers aren't very good around women, if we try to ask a girl out, if a girl really doesn't like us, she can point a finger and claim sexual harassment, that is a very bad result. Since the guy is the one who asks out the girl and the girl simply says yes or no or claims sexual harassment, then us guys are particularly vulnerable to false charges of sexual harassment. Women aren't so vulnerable because the guy usually makes the first move. The girl has the luxury of having a guy do the approaching, and she gets to say yes or no, all the girl has to do is look pretty and attract the guy. if the guy does not make the first move, nothing happens, he doesn't get the girl, somebody else who takes the risk of sexual harassment charges does! Do you see my point?




"The girl" isn't there for you to "get". She's not a product on the shelf or a prize to be one. It's not your responsibility to go "get" her. Nor is it her responsibility to respond positively to you or that "someone else" because you made the "first move".

This whole approach and attitude sounds like the kind of entitled BS that leads to creeps describing themselves as 'incels' when the truth is they have a toxic attitude toward women.


----------



## Sadras

caljai said:


> I simply wanted to make people aware that harassment can and has gone both ways. And "if" we are serious about wanting to stop harassment...then we must be willing to talk about every side of harassment!




If SPF confesses and apologizes would that satisfy you?
So people should confess and apologise before they are accused?


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon

The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.

The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.

That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...

None of that matters.

We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.

The details of this article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort. 

What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity. 

I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.

That is all that truly needs to be said about this.


----------



## caljai

Sadras said:


> If SPF confesses and apologizes would that satisfy you?
> So people should confess and apologise before they are accused?




I'm not sure what you are getting at here Sandras?

If a person chooses to confess and apologize then that is a good action and a good start to ending harassment, albeit a small one. This isn't about me being satisfied or any other person being satisfied. This is simply about discussions on harassment!

If a person is guilty, then yes they should confess and apologize...most won't because it's not in their best interest most of the time...again though, what does this have to do with the discussion we are having?


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> "The girl" isn't there for you to "get". She's not a product on the shelf or a prize to be one. It's not your responsibility to go "get" her. Nor is it her responsibility to respond positively to you or that "someone else" because you made the "first move".
> 
> This whole approach and attitude sounds like the kind of entitled BS that leads to creeps describing themselves as 'incels' when the truth is they have a toxic attitude toward women.



There's some surprising stuff being said in this thread; the poster you replied to is at the more extreme end of this. He seems bizarrely lacking in self-awareness in the way he talks as if his default audience is other men wondering how they can "get" women; if in fact he is being deliberate than I think it's probably even worse.


----------



## Jeanneliza

I have been following this thread since it started, and there are so many issues I could address here as a woman, as a grandmother who games, and just as a decent human being but that would take a book.
I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.
Second, they clearly gave Mr. Fannon an opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf, and he clearly did. And HIS statement is riddled with admissions of bad behavior in the past and at least one occasion where it was reported to Con organizers. This itself lends credibility to the claims and pretty much ends any potential for a libel suit.
Third, people have commented on here who know him personally, and they too make enough admissions to again, preclude any potential libel suit.
Fourth, this paranoid BS about jail. NO ONE is talking about sending Mr. Fannon to jail, nor could they. These are civil offense at the level reported. If he physically grabbed someone that crosses a line to simple assault, then it becomes potentially criminal, but no one has said any of these women want to take it to that level.
For a libel suit to prevail Mr. Fannon would have to prove these women are lying. His accusations about their motives are ALSO libelous, and his credibility with his own admitted pattern will be far more scrutinized in a lawsuit than the multiple accusers.
Now to the issue of free speech. There are four recognized exceptions under US law and one of them are private venues. ENWorld is a private venue under the law, i.e. not government owned. How they choose to limit or not limit speech here is a private business decision. You can boycott them if you disagree, this is a time honored form of free speech, but complaining about legal violations then demonstrating a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is just WRONG.
There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.
Do we ignore those rules at time? Sure, and when we do and then are actually attacked and we do report it do you know the questions we have to answer? WHY were you there alone? DID YOU say anything or act in anyway to encourage the attack? Were there any witnesses because unless they leave DNA and the attacker denies it is he said/she said. The news is loaded with TRUE stories nearly daily of a woman testifying against an assailant being put on trial to prove that she in NO WAY, word, thought, or deed invited this on herself.
So now that guys may have to do the same or be treated the same we have all this outrage.
As for PC, as I said I am a grandmother, I grew up in different times, and it seems to me this resentment of PC(or in my days was simply called good manners) is pretty misplaced. But I hear ya guys, I do miss the days when an elbow to the solar plexus or a knee to the groin of some overly friendly didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge.


----------



## Guest 6801328

caljai said:


> **I do not condone harassment of any kind**




And yet everything you wrote after that disclaimer essentially condones harassment by arguing for a system in which victims can't do anything about it.



Thomas Bowman said:


> Putting innocent people behind bars doesn't rectify what occurred in the past.




So we shouldn't imprison murderers?  Wait...what are you saying?

In any event, people don't go to prison based on newspaper articles, let along RPG forum articles.  Nor did this guy actually commit a crime.  But even if he did, we'd still have the whole indictment/trial/verdict thing to deal with.  



> In the past women didn't have the same rights as they do today, but men were still protective of them. If you were a man living in the 1600s, and your wife accuses someone of sexual harassment, you are going to get angry at the accused person and accept your wife's word over his own. You can't say women weren't listened to, as people did hang based on the word of women.




Oh, I see.  Women who are worried about harassment should FIND A MAN TO PROTECT THEM!?!?!?!

WTF?!?!  What freakin' century are you from, man?

And are you suggesting that, in the case we're discussing in this thread, male friends of the victims should go to the next GenCon and...what...beat the living  out of the guy on the convention floor?  

Un-f'ing-believable. 



caljai said:


> Unlike the writer and editor of this thread, I have no desire to accuse someone or someone's of harassment without proof.




Clearly the author believes he has proof.


----------



## cmad1977

You know your doing something right when the incel community starts posting on your site.


----------



## caljai

Elfcrusher said:


> And yet everything you wrote after that disclaimer essentially condones harassment by arguing for a system in which victims can't do anything about it.
> 
> In what way? You mean that requiring proof is condoning harassment? You mean following laws (like Libel) is condoning harassment? I'm very confused on how you reached such a skewed view. I'm arguing for a system in which facts and laws rule, not here say and allegations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the author believes he has proof.




I'm sure he does, that in no way, shape or form constitutes proof in the eyes of the law. If the author really believes he has proof of a crime having been committed...then he should report it and turn over all of the believed "proof" (evidence)...otherwise they could also be committing a crime (only in some states is it required)!

I'd report it LONG before i wrote a thread about it! But then again I am one who follows the law, for good reason!


----------



## GamesAtDawn

Full disclosure - I created an account to make this post. Also, I personally know SPF; we are not particularly close, but I have played games with him a few times and purchased his books. I'm not here to defend him - in fact, I have little doubt that he has harassed women in the past. He has admitted to harassment already, so I'm taking the view at at the very least some of what is reported is true, and that is a problem. His initial response, to defend as well as attack Chris and two women, was a poor decision. I see that he has just posted a comment above acknowledging that his response was a mistake, so at least he recognizes that as well.


I have two serious questions. First, what would the victims like to see happen? They are the aggrieved parties, and their voices carry weight in a sea of commentators (including myself) who were not involved in the incidents. Would they like an apology? Do they want SPF banned from future gaming events? Do they think he should lose his job? Are they looking to raise awareness so other perpetrators will be put on notice? If so, does SFP have a role to play there? I saw nothing in the original article to indicate the wishes of the victims, and only Chris (and perhaps Morrus) are in a position to share that information, with the women's consent, of course.


Second, what are the best next steps for our industry as a whole? Harassment is a huge issue in the gaming industry, and it seems clear that SPF has been part of that problem. That has been raised to the consciousness of a fairly tightly-knit community, and some who defended SPF while many who have condemned him. There is a point to be made that such publicity will put other harassers on notice, but many perpetrators are not public figures in the gaming world and have much less to lose than SPF from a public shaming. Can we leverage SPF's bad behaviors in a positive way moving forward? Perhaps he could be involved on panels on the problematic nature of sexual harassment in our hobby, or perhaps Chris and Morrus, if they feel strongly about investing in addressing sexual harassment, can provide information and forums for gamers and event organizers to discuss the issue of harassment and organize rules and speakers to combat it. 

The original article began discussing the greater issue in our hobby, but aside from some general comments on the need for harassment policies, it focused largely on SFP. SFP is not the first harasser to be shamed in a public forum, nor will he (sadly) be the last. Harassment policies are an important step, but all gamers need to know that it is our responsibility to speak up when we see harassment. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I'd like to see the many commentators denying the problem of harassment in our hobby come to understand it better, and be part of the solution.


----------



## Obryn

caljai said:


> I'm sure he does, that in no way, shape or form constitutes proof in the eyes of the law. If the author really believes he has proof of a crime having been committed...then he should report it and turn over all of the believed "proof" (evidence)...otherwise they could also be committing a crime (only in some states is it required)!
> 
> I'd report it LONG before i wrote a thread about it! But then again I am one who follows the law, for good reason!



You seem very ... confused ... about the differences between lawsuits and journalism, and about the differing standards of evidence at stake.

You also keep on retreating to a 'crime' comparison - probably because you know very well that a criminal case has an exceedingly strict standard of evidence, whereas neither civil suits nor journalism require what a criminal conviction requires. It's a cute and altogether transparent way to shift the goalposts.


----------



## billd91

Jeanneliza said:


> There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.




Quoted for emphasis.


----------



## DM Magic

caljai said:


> I'm sure he does, that in no way, shape or form constitutes proof in the eyes of the law. If the author really believes he has proof of a crime having been committed...then he should report it and turn over all of the believed "proof" (evidence)...otherwise they could also be committing a crime (only in some states is it required)!
> 
> I'd report it LONG before i wrote a thread about it! But then again I am one who follows the law, for good reason!




This has to be a joke. Right? You're kidding. You must be. No one can be this obtuse.


----------



## PerditionBound

First time poster. I created an account a year ago, but never felt a need to post on the forum. I have enjoyed and appreciated the articles that show up in my email box. I have enjoyed the snapshots provided regarding our shared hobby. I have been reading this thread and others for days. 

I know Sean Fannon. I have known him for over a decade. At first that was what brought me here, a vested interest in something that had to do with my friend. I have to admit some disappointment from the things I have read here. The dissection of the article. The dissection of Sean's lengthy response. The railing against Morrus and Helton. The discussions of legalities and journalistic integrity. But at the end of the day, to me, none of that matters. 

What matters to me is an earnest discussion and reminder to all of us, regarding our behaviors within a hobby and community that we love. And to listen to the plight of women in our community who have been silenced, to offer them an open forum and acknowledge their struggle, their pains and validate that experience. By being willing to open ourselves up, to acknowledging their truth we can start to move our community in the positive direction it needs to. 

This is a perfect opportunity to set aside all the , to genuinely take a look at ourselves, our friends, our leaders and our "celebrities" and decide we are ready to take a stand. To give back voice and empowerment to those who have been silenced with a culture of fear. I know that I am ashamed, both by actions that I have taken in my past towards others and also my actions in the present where I didn't stand up for someone when I should have. That I didn't call my friends on their . This article has made me stop and critically reflect upon those actions. In this regard, I thank profoundly Morrus and Helton.

Sean has made statements to the community. He's attempted to defend himself. To explain himself. To acknowledge his actions. For me, this is a good first step. As a friend once told me, "I will never blame you for who you are, only if you choose to remain that way." I will continue to love my friend. But I will also try to help him become the man he wants to be and maybe along the way help make all those around me the people we need and deserve to be; Caring, compassionate, inclusive and respectful.

To all those who have been assaulted in any fashion, all peoples no matter gender, but more importantly to women who have for too long had to suffer with this culture of fear, I as a privileged man offer my most heartfelt apologies. I am truly sorry for having failed you and not stood up for you when you needed it most. I truly hope that we as a community, not just the users of this forum, but the greater gaming community take advantage of opportunities like this and choose to make a difference. 

I know I will.


----------



## DM Magic

Jeanneliza said:


> I have been following this thread since it started, and there are so many issues I could address here as a woman, as a grandmother who games, and just as a decent human being but that would take a book.
> I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
> First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.
> Second, they clearly gave Mr. Fannon an opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf, and he clearly did. And HIS statement is riddled with admissions of bad behavior in the past and at least one occasion where it was reported to Con organizers. This itself lends credibility to the claims and pretty much ends any potential for a libel suit.
> Third, people have commented on here who know him personally, and they too make enough admissions to again, preclude any potential libel suit.
> Fourth, this paranoid BS about jail. NO ONE is talking about sending Mr. Fannon to jail, nor could they. These are civil offense at the level reported. If he physically grabbed someone that crosses a line to simple assault, then it becomes potentially criminal, but no one has said any of these women want to take it to that level.
> For a libel suit to prevail Mr. Fannon would have to prove these women are lying. His accusations about their motives are ALSO libelous, and his credibility with his own admitted pattern will be far more scrutinized in a lawsuit than the multiple accusers.
> Now to the issue of free speech. There are four recognized exceptions under US law and one of them are private venues. ENWorld is a private venue under the law, i.e. not government owned. How they choose to limit or not limit speech here is a private business decision. You can boycott them if you disagree, this is a time honored form of free speech, but complaining about legal violations then demonstrating a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is just WRONG.
> There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.
> Do we ignore those rules at time? Sure, and when we do and then are actually attacked and we do report it do you know the questions we have to answer? WHY were you there alone? DID YOU say anything or act in anyway to encourage the attack? Were there any witnesses because unless they leave DNA and the attacker denies it is he said/she said. The news is loaded with TRUE stories nearly daily of a woman testifying against an assailant being put on trial to prove that she in NO WAY, word, thought, or deed invited this on herself.
> So now that guys may have to do the same or be treated the same we have all this outrage.
> As for PC, as I said I am a grandmother, I grew up in different times, and it seems to me this resentment of PC(or in my days was simply called good manners) is pretty misplaced. But I hear ya guys, I do miss the days when an elbow to the solar plexus or a knee to the groin of some overly friendly didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge.




Quoting this for the people in the back.


----------



## caljai

Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.

First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).

When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal. 

Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!

The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.


 Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.


----------



## DM Magic

caljai said:


> Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.
> 
> First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).
> 
> When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
> I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.
> 
> Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!
> 
> The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.
> 
> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.




As was said before:



			
				Jeanneliza said:
			
		

> I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
> First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.


----------



## billd91

caljai said:


> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.




It generally does if its true. While there are certain exceptions, it is generally impossible to libel or slander someone with the truth, no matter how painful that truth is to the person's reputation or character.

That stands in contrast with other countries, the UK being one that I'm familiar with, where the courts make it easier for someone to sue for defamation even when the statements made against them are provably true - easier than in the US at least.


----------



## DM Magic

caljai said:


> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.




ikr? People can do that all on their own just by repeatedly posting garbage opinions to a forum!


----------



## Thomas Bowman

caljai said:


> Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.
> 
> First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).
> 
> When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
> I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.
> 
> Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!
> 
> The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.




And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.

Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"


----------



## billd91

Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.
> 
> Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"




Wow. Just ing wow, man. The level of misogyny in some posts in this thread has been really astonishing.


----------



## Doug McCrae

caljai said:


> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.



Fannon himself has admitted to sexual harassment.



> I have acted inappropriately, many times, in my past. I've leered, male gaze extant, and paid overly-familiar compliments. I've flirted with folks who were just there to be a part of things, not expecting or wanting to be flirted with. I've used my position of privilege to intrude into the emotional and personal space of women I was attracted to. I've had things to say about their appearance, and simply assumed it was OK.
> 
> I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.
> 
> I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing.


----------



## TheIdeaOfGood

Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.
> 
> Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"




Urgh....do you really think that women are like that? That petty? That's dark...seriously. I can tell you, even as a "dorky" guy myself who got rejected more than once...I never once got called a harasser because I simply respected a "no". It hurts but it's not done out of malice. Sometimes, people click and sometimes they don't. It's harsh...but it's life. No need to allow fear or hatred to consume you.
 [MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION] - Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. I have to admit, I caught myself thinking about false accusations and men having to suddenly be extra careful and felt that tinge of resentment, too...until you pointed out that women have had to worry about these things for far, far longer.
It really put things in perspective for me and I mean that wholly without sarcasm.Thanks.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Huh.  I think Libel ENW has now surpassed Fair Use ENW as my least favorite ENW.  So much much ignorance, so widely spread, yet so adamantly professed.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

billd91 said:


> Wow. Just ing wow, man. The level of misogyny in some posts in this thread has been really astonishing.




I'm not saying all women will do this, so this is not misogyny. There are some evil women out there however just like their are evil men, to admit this is not misogyny. The result is this man has to keep seeing this woman in order to keep her silent and keep his marriage going, otherwise that mistress can do some damage to his marriage or even worse, she could accuse him of sexual harassment or even rape. In essence she could rape him by holding the threat of imprisonment over his head if he does not continue this sexual relationship with her! This would be involuntary sex, thus rape, she could even rip her clothes and claim it was a sexual assault, she could prove he had sex with her, and they guy wishing to stay out of jail would have no choice but to keep on having sex with her, and would have to face the legal consequences to end it.

This is definitely possible as all women definitely are not angels and you can't say that none would ever do this.


----------



## DM Magic

Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.
> 
> Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"




How... how is it possible for these words to tumble from your mouth without you realizing how misogynistic they are?


----------



## Thomas Bowman

DM Magic said:


> How... how is it possible for these words to tumble from your mouth without you realizing how misogynistic they are?




How is it misogynistic if it is not a blanket accusation of all women? Some women are good others are bad, just like men are, that is why we need proof not just hearsay!


----------



## Sunseeker

billd91 said:


> Wow. Just ing wow, man. The level of misogyny in some posts in this thread has been really astonishing.




For someone who self-admitted to not interacting with women other than his wife for 30 years, he sure seems to know a lot about the way women operate!


----------



## Jeanneliza

Thomas Bowman said:


> I'm not saying all women will do this, so this is not misogyny. There are some evil women out there however just like their are evil men, to admit this is not misogyny. The result is this man has to keep seeing this woman in order to keep her silent and keep his marriage going, otherwise that mistress can do some damage to his marriage or even worse, she could accuse him of sexual harassment or even rape. In essence she could rape him by holding the threat of imprisonment over his head if he does not continue this sexual relationship with her! This would be involuntary sex, thus rape, she could even rip her clothes and claim it was a sexual assault, she could prove he had sex with her, and they guy wishing to stay out of jail would have no choice but to keep on having sex with her, and would have to face the legal consequences to end it.
> 
> This is definitely possible as all women definitely are not angels and you can't say that none would ever do this.




Might I suggest to you the problem here as you defined it is the MAN knowingly cheated on his wife. Without any further allegations required, THAT alone would be enough to end his marriage in many cases. With all your negative stereotyping about women you have failed to see where your own words damn the behavior of men.


----------



## Venley

Jeanneliza said:


> There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.
> Do we ignore those rules at time? Sure, and when we do and then are actually attacked and we do report it do you know the questions we have to answer? WHY were you there alone? DID YOU say anything or act in anyway to encourage the attack? Were there any witnesses because unless they leave DNA and the attacker denies it is he said/she said. The news is loaded with TRUE stories nearly daily of a woman testifying against an assailant being put on trial to prove that she in NO WAY, word, thought, or deed invited this on herself.
> So now that guys may have to do the same or be treated the same we have all this outrage.
> As for PC, as I said I am a grandmother, I grew up in different times, and it seems to me this resentment of PC(or in my days was simply called good manners) is pretty misplaced. But I hear ya guys, I do miss the days when an elbow to the solar plexus or a knee to the groin of some overly friendly didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge.




Thank you. I'm a woman of a similar age and you express this truth so well.


----------



## Obryn

Thomas Bowman said:


> I'm not saying all women will do this, so this is not misogyny. There are some evil women out there however just like their are evil men, to admit this is not misogyny. The result is this man has to keep seeing this woman in order to keep her silent and keep his marriage going, otherwise that mistress can do some damage to his marriage or even worse, she could accuse him of sexual harassment or even rape. In essence she could rape him by holding the threat of imprisonment over his head if he does not continue this sexual relationship with her! This would be involuntary sex, thus rape, she could even rip her clothes and claim it was a sexual assault, she could prove he had sex with her, and they guy wishing to stay out of jail would have no choice but to keep on having sex with her, and would have to face the legal consequences to end it.
> 
> This is definitely possible as all women definitely are not angels and you can't say that none would ever do this.



Thank you, forums poster Thomas Bowman, for coming forward with the "but what if women are sadistic, lying witches?" defense.

I am sure that your fanciful what-if scenarios are extremely pertinent to the issue at hand and things that actually happen all the time. 

As opposed to harassment, which is basically nonexistent and in fact only happens when there's video evidence, sworn witnesse affidavits, and certification from a licensed telepath who can testify as to the alleged harasser's actual intent.


----------



## DM Magic

Thomas Bowman said:


> How is it misogynistic if it is not a blanket accusation of all women? Some women are good others are bad, just like men are, that is why we need proof not just hearsay!




Here, let me help you find the misogyny by editing your post.



Thomas Bowman said:


> And women *people* who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women *People* have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her *their* word against his *others* and her *their* word always wins! Women *People* who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female *their* friends to agree that the man *person* in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women *people* goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys *people* get on those women *people* falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some women's *person's* word on it alone.
> 
> Women *People* can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a women *person* is having a relationship with a married man *person*, and the married man *person* is feeling guilty and he *they* wants to end it with her so he *they* can go back to his *their* wife *partner*, but the mistress *person* says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy *person* and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"




Keep in mind, all I did was point out the misogyny in your framing of this from a man's point of view, thus vilifying women -- and not any of the other myriad of ways your post is entitled and disgusting.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sunseeker

lowkey13 said:


> Does it work for them on other websites, maybe?.




Just to this question here, the answer is yes.

I circulate 3 main forums: MMO-Champion, here, and Deviantart.

The latter is almost completely unmoderated, and yes, it looks an awful lot like what the other unmoderated areas of the internet look like.  MMOC _is_ moderated but the moderators _never_ hand out lasting punishments, and do very little about ban evasion.  Poop-posters are allowed to run on for days and weeks with their posts ranging from outright insults to women, minorities and other posters before a mod shows up to give them a 3-7 day vacation...at which point they either abandon the account in favor of a sock-puppet (or multiple sock puppets) or start right back up when the vacation is over.  

And this is outside of the more terrifying places on the internet where that sort of posting, and worse is actively _encouraged_.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328

Back in the day elitistjerks.com had the best forum rules/moderation ever.  I say that even though I ran afoul of it a few times.


----------



## Sunseeker

lowkey13 said:


> Every day, I am that much more thankful for this website and for the moderation of Morrus and the administrators.
> 
> While it must be dispiriting at times (such as this thread), it really allows for a much better signal/noise ratio on a daily basis.




Yeah, I honestly come here to clear my head.  There's something relaxing about the fact that problematic posts are dealt with swiftly, to the point where they almost never appear to begin with.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Well I have to say at least this thread has proven Mr. Helton's premise in the headline, there clearly is still a LOT of work to be done, not just in the gaming community but in our society as a whole.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Obryn said:


> Thank you, forums poster Thomas Bowman, for coming forward with the "but what if women are sadistic, lying witches?" defense.
> 
> I am sure that your fanciful what-if scenarios are extremely pertinent to the issue at hand and things that actually happen all the time.
> 
> As opposed to harassment, which is basically nonexistent and in fact only happens when there's video evidence, sworn witnesse affidavits, and certification from a licensed telepath who can testify as to the alleged harasser's actual intent.




Great post.  The "oh no! terrible things _might possibly happen_ if we allow justice to be served" argument is the last resort of the weak.


----------



## Morrus

Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.
> 
> Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"




This level of bitterness and misogyny is pretty dark. I don’t know why you have such a low opinion of women, but it has no place here. Please do not post again in this thread. This post, and your others in this thread, are appalling; I'll be considering your future here.


----------



## Dualazi

Christopher Helton said:


> This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear.




Yeah, thankfully the message is "witch hunts shouldn't destroy people's careers" it seems, which is a pretty good one on the whole. Convention organizers are under no impetus, nor should they be, to conduct background checks that transcend beyond the legal sphere into the realm of rumors and maybes. Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf. If a speaker they invite goes and drives under the influence after his/her time-slot, it's not on the convention to screen further speakers for a history of drunkenness. 



Christopher Helton said:


> More conventions are rolling out harassment policies for guests and attendees of their conventions. Not only does this help to protect attendees from bad behavior, but it can also help to protect conventions from bad actors within the various communities that gather at our conventions. As incidents of physical and sexual harassment are becoming more visible, it becomes more and more clear that something needs to be done.
> 
> _additional editorial contributions by Morrus_




Two things on this note:

1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.

2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering. 



DemoMonkey said:


> Discussion point:
> 
> Assuming the rate of vindictive "false reporting" for harassment runs at about 5% (which is a little lower than the average rate of criminal false accusation, but is a nice round number).
> 
> Is it better for 19 honest women who feel harassed to be harmed by having their stories disbelieved, or for 1 honest man to be destroyed by false accusations?
> 
> Apocryphal Benjamin Franklin and Rene Descarte quotes aside, that should be easy math for us nerds. "The needs of the many..."




Unambiguously the nineteen women to be disbelieved. Our entire justice system (assuming you're American) is built around the presumption of innocence, and yes, the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free than to put innocent people in jail, or in this case have their public reputation destroyed. Mob justice is never sufficient in any scenario.



jdrakeh said:


> I love the chorus of ""Harassment hasn't occurred until proven before a court of law and these women are all dirty, dirty, liars until a judge says otherwise!" battle cry of sexual harassment champions here. This is why I don't post on ENWorld very much. If you think being a SJW is awful, being a die hard champion for sexual harassment and he-man woman-hater is magnitudes worse.




I think we'd all enjoy it if you went back to not posting, since you seem to be unable to have a conversation with dissenting opinions without resorting to personal attacks.



Gradine said:


> There is no fence.
> 
> There are two potential outcomes to accusations such as these. (1) Something happens as a result; i.e. Fannon faces consequences for his actions (based, ideally, on a number of different circumstances, but especially on the sincerity of his contrition and demonstration of better behavior); or (2) Nothing happens; the status quo remains; i.e, Fannon faces no consequences.
> 
> You do not get to not choose a side. You are either for the status quo, which tacitly means you believe the women making accusations are lying (or, at the very least, you believe that we should base our reaction _as if_ we believed they were lying, which is a difference without a distinction if you ask me); or you believe they are telling the truth, at least in part if not in full, which means that there should be _some_ consequences for Fannon's behavior.




You're right, there is no fence. You either support mob justice with no oversight or restraint, or you support the "status quo" that realizes why this is an incredibly bad idea. Because that's what you're advocating here, you can haw and hum over "consequences", but unless you have some grand plan as to how those will be carried out in a fair and just fashion you're just sidestepping the issue.


----------



## Jester David

With all the dealing with trolls, a pretty key post slipped by unnoticed. So just wanted to signal boost it.
(A pretty good example of why, after a good faith rely or two, you should ignore and block and not repeatedly engage.)



Sean Patrick Fannon said:


> The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.
> 
> The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.
> 
> That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...
> 
> None of that matters.
> 
> We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.
> 
> The details of this article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.
> 
> What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.
> 
> I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.
> 
> That is all that truly needs to be said about this.


----------



## the_redbeard

Dualazi said:


> Two things on this note:
> 
> 1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.
> 
> 2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering.




Besides outing people with opinions like yours to the rest of the community, the publishing of these revelations has lead to public introspection, acknowledgement of harm done, a public apology, and an expression to change.

Since you missed that, I'll quote it here:



			
				SPF said:
			
		

> The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.
> 
> The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.
> 
> That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...
> 
> None of that matters.
> 
> We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.
> 
> The details of the EN World article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.
> 
> What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.
> 
> I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.
> 
> That is all that truly needs to be said about this.




We can only hope that Sean makes good on his intentions which is the real test of the effectiveness of publicizing the allegations.  What we know is not effective is continuing to ignore the voices of the harassed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

caljai said:


> Second, I'm not certain to which country this thread writer originates from, however ...in the United States there is a crime called Libel (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation). Since NONE of these allegations have been proven in a court of law, then this entire thread is Libel (if EN has a legal team... you may be advised to remove the thread) and again leaves me wondering about the validity of this thread.
> 
> Feel free to ban me, because I have approached the thread with facts and law.




No.

1) You have approached this thread with ignoring stated facts- the behavior was corroborated by multiple witnesses AND Mr. Fannon has admitted to at least some of the behavior described, here in this thread and elsewhere.  This has been pointed out *multiple *times by other posters, but somehow, that keeps evading the notice of several people in this thread.

2) Because of this proof and admissions- even without the rigor of the rules of evidence in a court- describing the article as “libel” is a complete misstatement of law.  The behavior alleged has been verified AND admitted to and is therefore not libel *as a matter of law.*  An attorney trying to make this into a libel case would see it dismissed so quickly after the defendant’s statement “He admitted to the behavior ______, ______, and ____ times, your Honor”, heads would spin.  The only question would be whether the plaintiff’s attorney would get a contempt citation and/or a sanction from the bar association.


----------



## Gradine

Dualazi said:


> You're right, there is no fence. You either support mob justice with no oversight or restraint, or you support the "status quo" that realizes why this is an incredibly bad idea. Because that's what you're advocating here, you can haw and hum over "consequences", but unless you have some grand plan as to how those will be carried out in a fair and just fashion you're just sidestepping the issue.




You say "mob justice", I say "social consequences for bad behavior". Note that in neither case do the laws or rules of American criminal justice really apply. There was a really great "Would you hire this babysitter?" example from earlier upthread, the point of which being we all make personal judgments about other people and who we do or do not want to associate with ourselves all the time, often based on either the words of others we trust (or at least trust more than the individual in question) or our own initial impressions, which are often based on our own preconceived biases based on an incredibly small sample size of the behaviors and actions that make up that unique individual. Show me a person who insists that they _never_ do this anyone, _ever,_ and I'll show you a person who is lying to themselves.

I'll come back to the "no oversight or restraint" as well, because that's pretty fairly (if implicitly) covered in the parts of my post that you did not quote, which is that the conversation about what consequences Mr. Fannon should face is very nuanced, and because the only consequences that will ever really apply are either those that are self-imposed or made by individual persons, by necessity they cannot be either codified nor institutionalized. Thus, the oversight and restraint that exists exists as it does through groupthink; social consequences are always a democracy. 

Given Mr. Fannon's responses (and especially his second post, which is close to a perfect example of the proper way to apologize and demonstrate the desire and will to change bad behavior in this type of situation) I think you'll find that the call for consequences will be much lighter than you would normally see in these cases (though heavier perhaps than if he had offered specific apologies to specific individuals for specific behaviors).

Which brings me back to my first point: we all make judgments of others based on what we know about them (whether we find that information first hand or second hand), and the only question is; where does each of us draw the line?


----------



## kenmarable

Dualazi said:


> Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf.




Citation needed.

Because this would be very surprising news to a lot of people who run conventions.


----------



## Sunseeker

kenmarable said:


> Citation needed.
> 
> Because this would be very surprising news to a lot of people who run conventions.




Right?  I don't know where someone would get the idea that they _wouldn't_ be.  

Sure, there might be exceptions for things that the Con didn't know about, or things that were beyond the Con's control; which is of course, why it's important to bring these kinds of matters to the Con's attention, but reasonably speaking, it's as true for the Con being responsible for what goes on under their watch as it is a Parent or a Business Owner.


----------



## Sunseeker

oops double post


----------



## jdrakeh

Dualazi said:


> I think we'd all enjoy it if you went back to not posting, since you seem to be unable to have a conversation with dissenting opinions without resorting to personal attacks.




A personal attack actually requires that the attack be addressed, _personally_. As the name might imply. You know, as you have done here _by addressing me personally_. That irony is pretty sweet. That said, a very large number of people are _completely_ ignoring facts presented within this thread and accompanying article (e.g., witness testimony, the article author's statement that he saw electronic evidence of harassment, and the fact that Mr. Fannon himself admitted to some of the harassment) in their rush to fall on their sword for Mr. Fannon's benefit. There are a lot of sexual assault heroes in this thread, literally championing a man accused of sexual assault while openly denigrating his accusers as dirty liars. But I'm not addressing that at anybody personally. If you take it personal, that's a YP.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Dualazi said:


> Unambiguously the nineteen women to be disbelieved. Our entire justice system (assuming you're American) is built around the presumption of innocence, and yes, the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free than to put innocent people in jail, or in this case have their public reputation destroyed. Mob justice is never sufficient in any scenario.




Oh, well then you should read this study on wrongful incarceration.  

Estimated rate of wrongful incarceration: 4.1%.  Not very far from 5%, or 1 in 20.

(I've been hearing about similar rates; this was just the first article I found when I Googled.)

So do you therefore believe...unless you want to dismiss the conclusions of this study based on your own highly-scientific gut feel...that we should _free all prisoners?_ Because you say that unambiguously it would be better to leave justice unserved 19 times out of 20 in order to avoid wrongful conviction of that 20th innocent person.  So we'd better empty all of our prisons, because about 1 in 20 of those prisoners is innocent.  Right?

Or do your standards only apply when the victim is a woman, and the crime is something that you don't really think is a crime?


----------



## DemoMonkey

I’m deeply curious: does the actual percentage of potential false accusations matter to anyone’s conclusions?

If it were 1 percent of accusations are false, would the “Innocent until proven guilty” tribe change their minds? How about .01%? How about .0001?

If it were 10% of accusations are false, how many of the “Accusers must be believed” tribe change their minds? How about 50%? How about 99%?

At what level would certainty or uncertainty trump your ideological stance? What threshold of facts or lack of facts cause you (the general "you") to re-examine what you believe is the best course of action?


...
_(Fun prediction: Assuming anyone reads this post, *both* sides of this argument are now going to be offended at me for supporting the other side.)_


----------



## Guest 6801328

DemoMonkey said:


> I’m deeply curious: does the actual percentage of potential false accusations matter to anyone’s conclusions?
> 
> If it were 1 percent of accusations are false, would the “Innocent until proven guilty” tribe change their minds? How about .01%? How about .0001?
> 
> If it were 10% of accusations are false, how many of the “Accusers must be believed” tribe change their minds? How about 50%? How about 99%?
> 
> At what level would certainty or uncertainty trump your ideological stance? What threshold of facts or lack of facts cause you (the general "you") to re-examine what you believe is the best course of action?
> 
> 
> ...
> _(Fun prediction: Assuming anyone reads this post, *both* sides of this argument are now going to attack me for supporting the other side.)_




The mistake you're making is to assume that this has anything to do with which side gets "believed".  An article in a paper (or on a web site) is not a trial and a conviction.

Yes, this guy (sorry I can't seem to remember his name even though he just posted) is innocent until proven guilty.  I happen to believe the allegations, based on nothing but gut feel (and a sense of what guys are like and how the world works and no knowledge of any good motivation for the women to lie about this), but that doesn't make him guilty.

However, I don't think he (or any man accused of such a thing) has any right to secrecy until he is proven guilty.  The cost of secrecy is that there are never any repercussions, as we have seen.  So, yeah, some innocent guys get swept up and it causes them problems ranging from headaches to derailed careers and destroyed marriages, totally unfairly.  And the same thing happens when people are accused of other crimes...murder, child abuse, insider trading...you name it.  It sucks.  It's unfair.  And it's an unavoidable cost in a society that believes in the rule of law and a free press, because justice systems run by human beings will be imperfect.

But you (or anyone else) tell me: why should men accused of sexual harassment/assault/rape have a different set of privacy/secrecy expectations than those accused of other crimes?


----------



## DemoMonkey

Elfcrusher

I think the ubiquity of social media, and the importance of online reputation especially in the "gig" economy, has enormously amplified the damage an accusation can do to someone. And for better or worse the addition of the term "sexual" to an accusation amplifies it's seriousness a dozen times over. To a large extent, public accusation now IS public conviction. It just doesn't carry a prison sentence.

On the other hand, the fact that harassment (sexual or otherwise) is bad is so obvious as to be practically a tautology. And unpunished systemic harassment also ruins lives.

So my questions - and they are only a discussion starter, I make no pretense to have solutions - is "Do people on both sides of this divide understand there is a COST to their convictions? Is that cost worth the gain they hope to see?"

And as a result of that discussion, what - if any - previously held opinions on justice and gender interaction do we need to re-examine now?


----------



## Guest 6801328

(Does anybody know if there's a way to clear all multi-quotes within a thread, or do I have to manually hunt them down and uncheck them?)



DemoMonkey said:


> Elfcrusher
> 
> I think the ubiquity of social media, and the importance of online reputation especially in the "gig" economy, has enormously amplified the damage an accusation can do to someone. And for better or worse the addition of the term "sexual" to an accusation amplifies it's seriousness a dozen times over. To a large extent, public accusation now IS public conviction. It just doesn't carry a prison sentence.
> 
> On the other hand, the fact that harassment (sexual or otherwise) is bad is so obvious as to be practically a tautology. And unpunished systemic harassment also ruins lives.
> 
> So my questions - and they are only a discussion starter, I make no pretense to have solutions - is "Do people on both sides of this divide understand there is a COST to their convictions? Is that cost worth the gain they hope to see?"
> 
> And as a result of that discussion, what - if any - previously held opinions on justice and gender interaction do we need to re-examine now?




I do believe it's a problem that...at the moment...it seems like a mere accusation can end a career, or worse.  But not enough of a problem that we should go back to where things were even 10 years ago...that without somebody else's DNA in her panties not only does a woman have no recourse but if she even tries to do something it's likely that she will be the one to suffer (even more than she has).

That said, we need to figure out a better balance going forward.  Maybe now that organizations/universities are learning the damage that will be wrought if the stories do go public, women won't have to go public.  Maybe organizations will start responding more quickly...and conducting thorough and discrete investigations...rather than brushing off the accusations.  Or, worse, firing/shaming the "troublemaker" woman.


----------



## RedJenOSU

I think the bigger problem at this point is that people seem so bent on pointing fingers and being right that the presumed subject on how to curb harassment within the RPG community specifically (and overall) is being ignored.


----------



## Particle_Man

caljai said:


> Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.
> 
> First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).




Given that SPF has apologized, again, for his actions, I don't see a libel case as being likely to be brought forward, do you?  Who would be there that has standing to do so, if not SPF himself?



Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.




Let me guess: you would call the popular guys "Chads" and the women that like the popular guys "Stacys"?


----------



## Jeanneliza

RedJenOSU said:


> I think the bigger problem at this point is that people seem so bent on pointing fingers and being right that the presumed subject on how to curb harassment within the RPG community specifically (and overall) is being ignored.




Yes, let us move the conversation to this point. In doing so we need to analyze some of the problem and responses here more carefully. 
Presumption of innocence: In a criminal proceeding that applies. However here and all too often in allegations of harassment that leaves the victims with a conundrum. It is clear even with MULTIPLE accusers,and even admissions, some here seem to think it is okay to presume the accusers are lying by default, until proven otherwise. It seems to be the expectation that until there are MULTIPLE accusations the accuser has no real case because there needs to be a PATTERN of behavior to establish guilt. One problem with that is that means you have to have MULTIPLE victims before one can act. And since single victims dare not speak, they rarely know about other victims, especially in widely separated geographic locations. I am not sure why we are okay with the expectation that multiple victims are needed to protect the reputation of a single perpetrator as long as possible. These basic beliefs have a chilling affect on reporting.
Another again is the assumption the accusers are lying until proven in a court of law. First, in my state, filing a false police report is a class one felony carrying up to four years in jail. If those arguing women routinely lie think that is not enough of a deterrent then nothing would satisfy you.
Other suggestions I have seen here as that women use their phones to video any unwelcome behavior. Now there are several problems with this. First instead of telling men to just behave themselves, you are telling women it is there responsibility to make men behave themselves. That is a poor message to send either gender. Second, the minute we pull out a camera too record the behavior is likely to stop. Third, those who don't want to believe the accuser will use the fact that she was prepared to record it as further evidence she was just setting up some poor guy to get him in trouble. Fourth, in the more aggressive circumstances, taking the means to video away from someone is not that difficult.
You know maybe women should go back to wearing chastity belts too. Or perhaps we should walk about completely covered head to toe so as not to give some passing stranger a misconception about our virtue. Or maybe, just maybe we could start educating individuals about appropriate social behavior. 
Finally, and I have appreciated here, calling out the ridiculous levels of twisting and theoretical possibilities to allow the status quo to continue could be helpful. We have seen a lot of that here. Two cases in point, the gentleman I all ready spoke to about using the case of a cheating husband trapped in an affair he wants to end by the threat of allegations of sexual harassment or assault. This person clearly failed to see the cheating husband lying to his wife had a huge credibility issue in the first place, a big moral issue in the second place, and the truly innocent party in his scenario was a woman, his wife.
The other I found incredible that received no push back, the gentleman, when called to state a single case of a false accusation cited a case he acted as juror on where the man was found innocent, or the women guilty I forget which. His scenario: A guy was at a party and met a YOUNG GIRL there. She invited him to a motel with another YOUNG GIRL, obstensibly for pizza. The girls later robbed him and then covered the robbery with false allegations of sexual assault.
He never questioned the man's judgement or morals in going alone to a motel room with two YOUNG GIRLS(his description, not mine). He never discussed how the man 's own questionable judgement led to his predicament. 
However if I, as a woman, were to go alone to a motel room with two young men I had just met at a party and were then later assaulted, my judgement and intentions would immediately be called in to question and used against me.
It is this double standard of measurement of what is fair to a man or fair to a woman, what is questionable behavior in a man as opposed to the same behavior in a woman, that has been illustrated here several times. It has to be called out, not shrugged off, or overlooked because it is so NORMAL. It is the idea it takes multiple women to have the same credibility and benefit of the doubt as any single man feels entitled to that needs to be challenged EVERY TIME, in all venues. It is this double standard that throws things out of balance, and it is so pervasive it often goes unnoticed or unchallenged. Start here, then lets move forward again.


----------



## Doug McCrae

RedJenOSU said:


> I think the bigger problem at this point is that people seem so bent on pointing fingers and being right that the presumed subject on how to curb harassment within the RPG community specifically (and overall) is being ignored.



Surely pointing fingers, in the sense of identifying harassers, has to be part of that? A harasser must be identified before they can be removed from a convention or banned from attending.


----------



## DemoMonkey

_"It is the idea it takes multiple women to have the same credibility and benefit of the doubt as any single man feels entitled to that needs to be challenged EVERY TIME, in all venues. It is this double standard that throws things out of balance, and it is so pervasive it often goes unnoticed or unchallenged. Start here, then lets move forward again."_

That's absolutely fair. So let's establish a basic assumption:

*Gender should have absolutely no bearing on an accusers credibility, nor on an accused's defense.*


----------



## Morrus

caljai said:


> I have been to many Cons throughout my life and I have had encounters with women (and men) who harassed me or bordered on harassment. I have also recently been harassed because of my sex and color and witnessed signs put up that were NOT inclusive to my sex and color (white/male). Why didn't this thread talk about those instances?




I'm sorry to hear that you have been harassed at conventions because of your sex and your colour. That's terrible. 

In answer to your question, the reason why this thread (by which I assume you refer to the article) is not talking about those instances is because we don't know about them. 

If you have reports of harassment at a gaming convention, please do contact Chris Helton! We can only cover these things if people come forward with information.


----------



## Jeanneliza

DemoMonkey said:


> _"It is the idea it takes multiple women to have the same credibility and benefit of the doubt as any single man feels entitled to that needs to be challenged EVERY TIME, in all venues. It is this double standard that throws things out of balance, and it is so pervasive it often goes unnoticed or unchallenged. Start here, then lets move forward again."_
> 
> That's absolutely fair. So let's establish a basic assumption:
> 
> *Gender should have absolutely no bearing on an accusers credibility, nor on an accused's defense.*




Fair enough and before I go further I want to add that I appreciate ENWorld, though there have been questionable comments on this thread, I think an effort is being made to treat the topic with respect to all parties. That said, in response to you comment that gender should have no bearing on credibility or defense I can concede that. and now want to take that to the next stage.
If gender truly has no bearing, then it should also have no bearing on the inherent need to take precautions against assault or false allegations. That means simply, if not getting into an elevator alone with a strange man because of the potential risk, the opposite gender should never be alone with a strange woman for fear of a false allegation. If I must watch how I dress, where I go, how I speak etc to avoid a misunderstanding then the opposite gender should also be bending over backwards to avoid any appearance of harassing behavior. Easiest way to do that by the way is never harass anyone. The immediate defense I have heard here to that suggestions is "But how do we know what is going to be called harassment?" Education. Listening. Accepting that freedom bears the responsibility to police ourselves to a large degree. Stop making excuses for bad behavior, your own or others. And a hint from a grandmother with 3 grandsons in their 20's, ask yourself, "Would I say/do something like this to a guy I just met?" If the answer is no, for whatever reason don't say it. 
And yes this goes both ways, but reality is, this has all ready applied to women without question in the past.


----------



## LazarusKane

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, well then you should read this study on wrongful incarceration.
> 
> Estimated rate of wrongful incarceration: .  Not very far from 5%, or 1 in 20.




Not to start a new discussion but these 4.1% are people wrongful incarcerated *and sentenced to death*; the author of the study concludes that  "(I)t follows that the rate of innocence must be higher for convicted  capital defendants who are not sentenced to death than for those who  are".


----------



## Hussar

/edit

Sorry, was catching up on the thread and didn't realize that the poster I was replying to got hisself thread banned.  No point in making this reply.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon1

It has been suggested that I need to "collect my friends" in this thread - specifically, those individuals who have chosen to take my "cause" and use it to advance misogynistic ideas, victim-blaming tactics, MRA agendas, and worse.

Allow me to be intensely clear about this - they are NOT my friends, they in no way speak for me, and I find all such statements reprehensible and unworthy. 

If you believe you need to push an agenda that vilifies women for stepping forward to report bad actors, do NOT do so in my defense. 

If you believe you need to advance anything that looks like "Not All Men," leave me out of it. We are not friends.

Peace.


----------



## Hussar

Dualazi said:


> Yeah, thankfully the message is "witch hunts shouldn't destroy people's careers" it seems, which is a pretty good one on the whole. Convention organizers are under no impetus, nor should they be, to conduct background checks that transcend beyond the legal sphere into the realm of rumors and maybes. Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf. If a speaker they invite goes and drives under the influence after his/her time-slot, it's not on the convention to screen further speakers for a history of drunkenness.




But, again, that's not what's being talked about.  We're talking about behavior that occurred AT conventions.  So, just because he didn't drive drunk while he DM'd a game, doesn't mean that he might not suffer any repercussions for driving home drunk every night after the convention.  After all, there's a REASON that many Con's have a drunk bus and a hotel reservation close to the con.  (I'm talking about smaller con's of course here, but, even larger con's generally have hotels nearby and means for getting there)

So, yeah, it's absolutely the responsibility of a Con organizer to recognize issues.  If someone is a convicted sex offender, then perhaps not inviting that person to speak at your all ages convention is a good idea.  If someone has a history of harassment, drunkenness or otherwise poor behavior, then absolutely that should impact whether you get invited to the con.




> Two things on this note:
> 
> 1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.




However, the raised awareness does impact behavior.  There's a very good reason we have amended our language in recent years.  



> 2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering.




This one I don't understand.  Why would con's need to have a higher rate of harassment for us to do anything?  

Doesn't the fact that there is harassment going on, and it wasn't being addressed in the past make it enough for us to step up and start doing something?


----------



## Hussar

Sean Patrick Fannon1 said:


> It has been suggested that I need to "collect my friends" in this thread - specifically, those individuals who have chosen to take my "cause" and use it to advance misogynistic ideas, victim-blaming tactics, MRA agendas, and worse.
> 
> Allow me to be intensely clear about this - they are NOT my friends, they in no way speak for me, and I find all such statements reprehensible and unworthy.
> 
> If you believe you need to push an agenda that vilifies women for stepping forward to report bad actors, do NOT do so in my defense.
> 
> If you believe you need to advance anything that looks like "Not All Men," leave me out of it. We are not friends.
> 
> Peace.




Aww, damn.  I didn't realize this was a sock puppet poster but thought this was Mr. Fannon himself.  Since he doesn't need a "1" after his name and a new nick, I should not have posrepped this.


----------



## billd91

You can undo XP, you just gotta wait 5 minutes.


----------



## Eltab

Jeanneliza said:


> If gender truly has no bearing, then it should also have no bearing on the inherent need to take precautions against assault or false allegations. ... then the opposite gender should also be bending over backwards to avoid any appearance of harassing behavior.



You mean like Rev. Billy Graham and VP Mike Pence have been known to do (never alone with a woman not their wife)?  They were right to be cautious and dignified about it, but got ripped in the popular press for being "old-fashioned" and maybe a little crazy.



			
				Jeanneliza said:
			
		

> Easiest way to do that by the way is never harass anyone.



This is most certainly true.

You have hinted at the real solution a few times: bring up boys to become young men who understand the standards of Gentlemanly conduct.  And girls to become Ladies.
For the ones who are already grown up, social pressure to become more gentlemanly.


----------



## Sebastrd

Jeanneliza said:


> I have been following this thread since it started, and there are so many issues I could address here as a woman, as a grandmother who games, and just as a decent human being but that would take a book.
> I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
> First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.
> Second, they clearly gave Mr. Fannon an opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf, and he clearly did. And HIS statement is riddled with admissions of bad behavior in the past and at least one occasion where it was reported to Con organizers. This itself lends credibility to the claims and pretty much ends any potential for a libel suit.
> Third, people have commented on here who know him personally, and they too make enough admissions to again, preclude any potential libel suit.
> Fourth, this paranoid BS about jail. NO ONE is talking about sending Mr. Fannon to jail, nor could they. These are civil offense at the level reported. If he physically grabbed someone that crosses a line to simple assault, then it becomes potentially criminal, but no one has said any of these women want to take it to that level.
> For a libel suit to prevail Mr. Fannon would have to prove these women are lying. His accusations about their motives are ALSO libelous, and his credibility with his own admitted pattern will be far more scrutinized in a lawsuit than the multiple accusers.
> Now to the issue of free speech. There are four recognized exceptions under US law and one of them are private venues. ENWorld is a private venue under the law, i.e. not government owned. How they choose to limit or not limit speech here is a private business decision. You can boycott them if you disagree, this is a time honored form of free speech, but complaining about legal violations then demonstrating a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is just WRONG.
> There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.
> Do we ignore those rules at time? Sure, and when we do and then are actually attacked and we do report it do you know the questions we have to answer? WHY were you there alone? DID YOU say anything or act in anyway to encourage the attack? Were there any witnesses because unless they leave DNA and the attacker denies it is he said/she said. The news is loaded with TRUE stories nearly daily of a woman testifying against an assailant being put on trial to prove that she in NO WAY, word, thought, or deed invited this on herself.
> So now that guys may have to do the same or be treated the same we have all this outrage.
> As for PC, as I said I am a grandmother, I grew up in different times, and it seems to me this resentment of PC(or in my days was simply called good manners) is pretty misplaced. But I hear ya guys, I do miss the days when an elbow to the solar plexus or a knee to the groin of some overly friendly didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge.




Thank you for posting that. You rock.


----------



## Michael Barnes

The article is poorly written, but let's just unpack this really quick. There are three women that say they were harassed by Fannon

2013:  A woman claims that he showed her explicit photos of himself and another woman, this apparently went on for years, the woman apparently never told him to stop.. Fannon claims it was consensual. She remains anonymous. 

2014: A woman claims Fannon was creepy and asked for hugs, she told him no brushing it off, he continued to bother her with asking for a hug. This is creepy as . Fannon says it happened, Fannon also says she complained to the event organizer, and that he learned from the incident, while he may not agree completely with her story, he does not deny that it happened and that he was in the wrong.

2017: Ms. Bulkeley claims he harasseed her numerous times in a variety of creepy ways. And after he harassed her, she remained friends with him and invited him to her house to DM her group and to celebrate what a great DM he is or some crap. Fannon then later decided to not be a part of RNM the thing that she was an organizer for. She get pissed at him and they had a falling out. She then made claims that he repeatedly harassed her. While Fannon claims she is making it up entirely.

What did I miss? 3 women over 5 years, one of which is not really in dispute. Another that is disputed whether it was harassment or consensual and the last one disputed whether it ever happened.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon1

Actually, it's me. My phone uses a different log in than my PC. Sorry, EN World loads strange on mobile.

I'll repost from home if it helps


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon

_(Reposting from home account to allay "sock monkey" concerns)_

It has been suggested that I need to "collect my friends" in this thread - specifically, those individuals who have chosen to take my "cause" and use it to advance misogynistic ideas, victim-blaming tactics, MRA agendas, and worse.

Allow me to be intensely clear about this - they are NOT my friends, they in no way speak for me, and I find all such statements reprehensible and unworthy. 

If you believe you need to push an agenda that vilifies women for stepping forward to report bad actors, do NOT do so in my defense. 

If you believe you need to advance anything that looks like "Not All Men," leave me out of it. We are not friends.

Peace.


----------



## thom_likes_gaming

Garthanos said:


> Yuck.




Hmm... would you want to be a bit more specific?


----------



## Imaculata

Thomas Bowman said:


> How is it misogynistic if it is not a blanket accusation of all women? Some women are good others are bad, just like men are, that is why we need proof not just hearsay!




Testimony by the victims IS proof!

I realize the poster has already been thread banned, but just wanted to emphasize this point. If people complain about your inappropriate behavior, that is not hearsay, it is proof.


----------



## prosfilaes

Eltab said:


> You mean like Rev. Billy Graham and VP Mike Pence have been known to do (never alone with a woman not their wife)?  They were right to be cautious and dignified about it, but got ripped in the popular press for being "old-fashioned" and maybe a little crazy.




So a female senator can't get a private appointment with the VP, but her male counterpart can? The next generation of politicians frequently come from the aides of the current generation, especially those who get private time to discuss their future with their mentors. You're throwing a monkey wrench in the idea of female politicians.

I don't think men would tolerate the opposite, a female leader who absolutely refused to have private discussions with men but did with women. 



> You have hinted at the real solution a few times: bring up boys to become young men who understand the standards of Gentlemanly conduct. And girls to become Ladies.




So ... women should be ladies and not be at cons? I'm pretty sure many versions of what Ladies should do explicitly exclude hanging out with the guys. Besides the fact that you're setting up two different standards for men and women, I have no idea what standards you're referring to; there have been a vast array of standards known as "gentlemanly" conduct. There's a set of standards at the top of the thread, but they aren't specific to one sex.


----------



## prosfilaes

Imaculata said:


> Testimony by the victims IS proof!




Testimony by victims is evidence, not proof. There are times you can have a reasonable semblance of proof, sometimes erected by a sufficient amount of victim testimony, but usually in life we're forced to muddle through with a pile of evidence that leaves holes for doubt and decide how we're to deal with it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Testimony by victims is evidence, not proof.




True.  But the sad fact is that in some cases, testimony is all that exists.

Whether it is believable as “proof” is a matter for the trier of fact in a court of law.  Whether the testimony is admitted to evidence for the trier of fact to hear is a matter of law.

In public discourse, though, the standards are more relaxed.  All we have are journalistic practices & ethics and our own personal moral compass for guidance.  IMHO, attempting to apply an evidentiary standard to everyday public discourse is misguided at best- most people lack the training to apply or adhere to such rules, and there is no neutral arbiter as to what can or cannot be considered when participants disagree.


----------



## malcmerlyn

I have pondered a lot since yesterday concerning Sean


In France we have the *Presumption of innocence* : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. 


That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true. 


We are not vigilantes, we are not here to make justice by ourselves, this whole EN thing seems to me a witch hunt and the victims should have sued him legally instead of trying to turn the internet against SPF. I talk with full knowledge of this kind of witch hunt because the situation where SPF is is well know to me, I have been targeted by this kind of attacks (at a lower scale) and I have lost friends in the course of it. Still nobody has sued me or brought proof I am what they said at this time. Still, I am the loser because now in France, I have difficulties making new friends or finding players. 

I also talked to two friends of him (Jodi Black and Len Pimentel) and I have made my decision. Il will support Sean because justice is not on the internet to make but on the legal system.


----------



## Catulle

malcmerlyn said:


> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.




The post-truth position laid out in all its stark and ugly glory.


----------



## malcmerlyn

Catulle said:


> The post-truth position laid out in all its stark and ugly glory.




well I don't care of your opinion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In France we have the Presumption of innocence : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.




Again, that is a standard of your criminal justice system, and no different from ours.



> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.




As pointed out above, sometimes, the judicial system is not used because of its own rules- statutes of limitations or a lack or weakness of evidence.  

In the latter, the prosecutor may not be able to prove guilt with the evidence in hand.  In the former, _there can be no trial._ 

So the lack of a court case is problematic, but it is in no way dispositive of determining the actual factual situation.  Claiming allegations “have no value” without a trial, then, is...an overstatement at best.


----------



## Hussar

malcmerlyn said:


> I have pondered a lot since yesterday concerning Sean
> 
> 
> In France we have the *Presumption of innocence* : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
> 
> 
> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.
> 
> 
> We are not vigilantes, we are not here to make justice by ourselves, this whole EN thing seems to me a witch hunt and the victims should have sued him legally instead of trying to turn the internet against SPF. I talk with full knowledge of this kind of witch hunt because the situation where SPF is is well know to me, I have been targeted by this kind of attacks (at a lower scale) and I have lost friends in the course of it. Still nobody has sued me or brought proof I am what they said at this time. Still, I am the loser because now in France, I have difficulties making new friends or finding players.
> 
> I also talked to two friends of him (Jodi Black and Len Pimentel) and I have made my decision. Il will support Sean because justice is not on the internet to make but on the legal system.




Ok, I really, really have to ask, what witch hunt?  What has actually happened here?

Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Fannon will no longer be contributing articles on the front page of En World.  That is the extent of things so far.  He's perfectly welcome to continue contributing to the site, as he has posted in this thread, so, it's not like he's been banned from anything.

What calls for boycotting his products have there been?  What calls for barring him from conventions have there been?  IOW, what witch hunt?  There's no hunting going on here.  None whatsoever.  At best, we have questions as to what we should do so  that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future.  There's been no call for anything else here.

So, please, for the love of little fishes, STOP with the defenses already.  There is no hunt.  None.  

This is why we can't actually talk about what to do about this sort of thing.  By the time we get around to actually addressing the issue, the threads have been so thoroughly crapped in that no one is left.  And as soon as any actual discussion of value starts, someone comes back in to defend the guy THAT HAS TWICE ASKED YOU TO STOP DEFENDING HIM.  

And, seriously, props to Mr. Fannon for stepping up to the plate here.  This cannot be easy, at all.


----------



## Catulle

malcmerlyn said:


> well I don't care of your opinion.




You came to a thread about harrassment and advanced the position that, if one takes you seriously, the accusations against Harvey Weinstein are without value until such time as a trial takes place _even if they are true_.

That is staggering, honestly, and I think you could benefit from re-examining that stance.


----------



## Imaculata

malcmerlyn said:


> In France we have the *Presumption of innocence* : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
> 
> 
> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.




This is not a courtroom. Accusations do not need to be proven for Enworld to take action against a person who has been accused by multiple individuals of inappropriate conduct.

This was already illustrated earlier in this thread with the example of a babysitter who is accused of inappropriate conduct towards children. You don't wait for evidence, you get your children away from that person as soon as the accusations come in.



malcmerlyn said:


> We are not vigilantes, we are not here to make justice by ourselves, this whole EN thing seems to me a witch hunt and the victims should have sued him legally instead of trying to turn the internet against SPF.




Sued him for what? No crime was committed here AFAIK. 

Plus, it is only a witch hunt if the accusations were false... but they are not. Sean admitted to it in this very thread and apologized for his behavior.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Imaculata said:


> Testimony by the victims IS proof!
> 
> I realize the poster has already been thread banned, but just wanted to emphasize this point. If people complain about your inappropriate behavior, that is not hearsay, it is proof.




Evidence, not proof.

(Scientist, not Lawyer.)

EDIT: Looks like somebody already pointed that out.


----------



## malcmerlyn

Catulle said:


> You came to a thread about harrassment and advanced the position that, if one takes you seriously, the accusations against Harvey Weinstein are without value until such time as a trial takes place _even if they are true_.
> 
> That is staggering, honestly, and I think you could benefit from re-examining that stance.




so you compares Weinstein and SPF ? how ridiculous.

If I believe Wikipedia : there is more than eighty complainers in the Weinstein case and the man admitted himself he was sick & guilty, besides, a lot of people knew but did not talk...you cannot compare apples & oranges...so step off this discussion, you don't know your subject.


----------



## malcmerlyn

Elfcrusher said:


> Evidence, not proof.
> 
> (Scientist, not Lawyer.)
> 
> EDIT: Looks like somebody already pointed that out.




Threadbanned ? Well I was not even AWARE I was threadbanned,how strange.


----------



## Catulle

malcmerlyn said:


> so you compares Weinstein and SPF ? how ridiculous.
> 
> If I believe Wikipedia : there is more than eighty complainers in the Weinstein case and the man admitted himself he was sick & guilty, besides, a lot of people knew but did not talk...you cannot compare apples & oranges...so step off this discussion, you don't know your subject.




So, multiple accusations and an admission of wrongdoing?

Right?

ETA: Look, I get that you want to walk back your statement that being on the internet plus not having gone to trial equals no value to the truth. I agree with that; I utterly think you _should_ chalk it up to poor formulation and reconsider - but it's a difference of degree, not kind and that's what I'm trying to raise to your awareness here.


----------



## malcmerlyn

I don't like comparing SPF who has not been harassing someone deliberatly to Weinstein who did. Besides, SPF had made a formal apology 20 hours ago on its public facebook wall and since it is a public publication, I copy-paste it here : 

The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.

The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.

That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...

None of that matters.

We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.

The details of the EN World article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.

What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.

I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.

That is all that truly needs to be said about this.


----------



## Morrus

User deleted at own request.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Eltab said:


> You mean like Rev. Billy Graham and VP Mike Pence have been known to do (never alone with a woman not their wife)?  They were right to be cautious and dignified about it, but got ripped in the popular press for being "old-fashioned" and maybe a little crazy.
> 
> 
> This is most certainly true.
> 
> You have hinted at the real solution a few times: bring up boys to become young men who understand the standards of Gentlemanly conduct.  And girls to become Ladies.
> For the ones who are already grown up, social pressure to become more gentlemanly.



Someone else all ready pointed out the thing that most struck me about your response last night but I wanted to sleep on it before I responded. You suggested we start teaching our sons etc the rules of gentlemanly conduct and raise girls to be ladies. I get you are trying to be even handed and balanced here BUT.....
Women are all READY required to conduct themselves in "ladylike ways" to avoid accusations of "asking for it". This is how it has ALWAYS been. You ignored my point that men should be held to that same standard of self-protection all ready imposed on women. I have been taught since infancy literally how to sit, dress, act and talk in the presence of men so they would recognize I was a "lady" and not harass me. Again, shifting the burden for her safety entirely on to the woman is the double standard I was decrying there. 
Now as for the term "lady". Lady is a rank of nobility, I have no  papers or patent of nobility, therefore I ain't no lady. And that still doesn't mean it is okay to harass or assault me.
I have grandsons and if I heard the defense of an admitted harasser or their own bad behavior I have read here coming out of their mouths I would be upside their heads with my whippersnapper trainer.
Teach the boys guys, because statistically they are a bigger problem than the few known cases of false allegations which, since we know about them were clearly proven false. However assailants get away with their crimes quite regularly. I could list endless cases here as proof, but if you are unaware of them all ready I would just be filling up thread space.
There is also the see something/say something rule. Learn to recognize when a woman in your group is feeling uncomfortable and speak up. 
Of course another solution is electrical charged body suits for women. Put your hand on it without consent, which would be given by deactivating the shock feature of the suit, and take a few hundred volts. That sounds extreme right? So is wearing body cams, and all the other suggestions that have been put out there suggesting women document their assaults better.
I have seen a lot of statements about what women should do to be safer, I want to hear what MEN should do. As I said, not assaulting or harassing women is a good start.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Jeanneliza,

Your posts are great.  Keep it up.  

One part I find compelling is your response to the whining complaint, "But with all this #metoo stuff men won't even be able to be friendly, because they will be so afraid of being misunderstood and accused of something. (wa-wa-waaaaa....)"

As you rightly pointed out, women have been taught something _exactly like this_ for decades and centuries: don't flirt, don't go to parties, don't be alone, don't drink, don't wear anything sexy, don't stay out past 10:00....if you do then whatever happens to you is your fault.

God forbid that men should also have to be careful when socializing.  We should be able to be drunken @$$sholes without repercussions, right?


----------



## damned

Sean Patrick Fannon said:


> The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.
> 
> The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.
> 
> That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...
> 
> None of that matters.
> 
> We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.
> 
> The details of this article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.
> 
> What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.
> 
> I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.
> 
> That is all that truly needs to be said about this.




Talking about and exposing patterns of bad behavior (and worse) is an important part of solving the problem. The more we talk about it the more aware of it we all become, the more we will think about our own actions, and where we (and Im very much including myself in this) could have and should have acted better in the past. 

Ignoring bad behavior normalizes it. Then worse behavior starts to become normalized.

Some of us will learn after being exposed to a message once, some of us need to be told many times to understand. 
And some of us just dont get it. 
Having our bad behavior exposed to everyone is one damn good way to really make us listen. 

So fellow men - if the message hasnt sunk in, if you havent yet understood that our behavior can and should be better - maybe you will get the pleasure of all of those around you learning abut your behavior publicly and then, maybe then you will really listen. Thats not a threat - its a plea - a plea to everyone to really make an effort to act properly.

Im sure Mr Fannon has not enjoyed this experience but it has helped more people hear the message and hopefully more of us to take stock of our own behavior and to do better. We all make mistakes and we can all do better.

There are lots of things in this thread that are not simple. However doing the right thing ourselves and expecting those around us to do the right thing will go a long way. I know when these types of topics first started coming up I had to re-evaluate things that I had taken for granted and acknowledge that my behavior should have been better at times.

I cant change what has happened. But I can do better now and in the future.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Doug McCrae said:


> Surely pointing fingers, in the sense of identifying harassers, has to be part of that? A harasser must be identified before they can be removed from a convention or banned from attending.




Harrassment is a systemic issue, so getting rid of it needs a systemic solution. If we rely on punishing individuals who harass to solve this issue, then we never deal with the underlying cause of harrassment. 

Changing the way we socialize boys to know that women NEVER owe them sex. That a female's body is her own and noone else's, regardless of where she is, what she is wearing, or what she has ingested does not alter her body autonomy. This social change would go a long way to curb harrassment. This is an example of a systemic approach.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

RedJenOSU said:


> Harrassment is a systemic issue, so getting rid of it needs a systemic solution. If we rely on punishing individuals who harass to solve this issue, then we never deal with the underlying cause of harrassment.
> 
> Changing the way we socialize boys to know that women NEVER owe them sex. That a female's body is her own and noone else's, regardless of where she is, what she is wearing, or what she has ingested does not alter her body autonomy. This social change would go a long way to curb harrassment. This is an example of a systemic approach.




AND BOTH have to be part of the solution, you are both right. We need to identify current harassers and have them removed or at least policed to some degree. We need better education and socialization, and the problem seems to be far worse for males
I have spoke to this before, women, and not JUST women, but all marginalized populations have been taught differently. 
How many of you men out there are aware there are CLASSES available to women on how to keep themselves safe in public? Where we learn awesome tips about never wearing ponytails(easier to grab from behind), always carry our carkeys in hand as a weapon against a potential assailant? To always LOOK into our cars if that were in a parking lot before getting in? To look UNDER them? You want to hear some of the latest tips we must now incorporate into our awareness? If someone in a parking lot offers you a perfume sample don't sniff it, there have been a rising number of incidents where it is in fact a knockout drug that has been used to kidnap women? NEVER leave our drink uncovered or untended at a party or a bar(This is tricky when you dance btw). 
So where are the classes for guys on either protecting themselves, or plain, simple socialization skills? 
I hear the concern of what to say to women. Hey, here is an idea, think of us a person first, okay? Ask questions about our interests, if we are at gaming Cons games might be a good one eh? Compliment us on our abilities, you know like hey, that is a great outfit did you put it together yourself? Or I love how your character in the game did...... 
Why are guys not being taught this? Why are they not taught if girls/women react to their overtures with reserve or suspicion it is because we first, do not OWE them our attention, and second, we have been TAUGHT. How come it is okay to expect us to be taught differently and then cries of "PC" and "SJW" when we point out that guys also seem to need to be taught?
You know my grandsons have often asked me how to talk to girls, they both have social imitations, one with autism, one with a serious mental illness diagnosis, and I give them the same advice. If out the gate you are trying to let a girl know you are more interested in her looks and what you want from her and don't see acknowledging her as a person and accepting her boundaries, and this indeed goes BOTH ways, then you are risking crossing the line into harassment and assault.


----------



## Guest 6801328

lowkey13 said:


> It's the idea of deterrence; when there are examples of people (esp. powerful people) who suffer consequences for negative behavior, then people are less likely to engage in that negative behavior.




I agree with you, however I also worry that the message going out right now is "you'll only get in trouble if you're famous enough for the media to care."

Hopefully the takedown of the rich & powerful will eventually result in the cultural/systemic changes.


----------



## RedJenOSU

lowkey13 said:


> Yes, but no.
> 
> Everyone is a big fan of systemic change. But systemic change also requires cultural change. And cultural change is helped by examples, in the culture, of people _not getting away with harassment._
> 
> It's the idea of deterrence; when there are examples of people (esp. powerful people) who suffer consequences for negative behavior, then people are less likely to engage in that negative behavior.
> 
> I agree that character and integrity is how people behave when no one is looking, and in ideal world we would only work on the systemic issues; but we don't like in a perfect world, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
> 
> TLDR; systemic change is good, but systemic solutions start from something. This is something.




So why do you say no that won't work? Why not "yes and " instead of "yes, but what I really mean is no"?

If people alter their behavior to avoid negative consequences, then they will alter to not be caught and the underlying issues remain. 

Build accountability (consequence) in to the system,  educate people that their privileges fo not extend past their own personal space. One thing I heard often growing up is that my rights end where yours begin. I think we need more of that awareness. We do not operate or live I. a vacuum.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RedJenOSU

lowkey13 said:


> Most importantly, this "systemic" change has to start on an individual level. There is no system without the individuals that make it up.




You are correct that a system is made of individuals. I'm saying let's educate as much as possible and give people (men) the chance to grow beyond their current state. A woke man who learns how his unconscious privilege has in the PAST harmed others can be a powerful ally to those he previously harmed.

Those in privilege don't lose their privilege just because they grow in awareness. In fact they become actor who can call out poor behavior without the same consequences faced by the person being harrassed. Using privilege for good.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91

RedJenOSU said:


> So why do you say no that won't work? Why not "yes and " instead of "yes, but what I really mean is no"?
> 
> If people alter their behavior to avoid negative consequences, then they will alter to not be caught and the underlying issues remain.
> 
> Build accountability (consequence) in to the system,  educate people that their privileges fo not extend past their own personal space. One thing I heard often growing up is that my rights end where yours begin. I think we need more of that awareness. We do not operate or live I. a vacuum.




This is one of the reasons I think we actually do need to point fingers. There have been penalties in the various systems for a long time just as there has been education for a long time (when I was a college freshman 30 years ago, we got a fair amount of education on consent). One of the things I believe that has been lacking is a will to actually enforce what's there and do so consistently - to draw the connecting lines between the education and what happens when you break those behavioral expectations. And that means identifying and penalizing the offenders.


----------



## Catulle

lowkey13 said:


> Instead of, "Using privilege for good(???)" how about, "Listening for once."




I _think_ that's just colloquial conflation of "privilege" with "power" rather than asserting that privilege=power.


----------



## RedJenOSU

lowkey13 said:


> Um, sorry, don't agree. The solution to the problem isn't "Hey, let's just get men to help out, y'all."
> 
> Instead of, "Using privilege for good(???)" how about, "Listening for once."
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but this concept ("Woke men will save us,") is just not .... a good look. Let's just start with "Stop making it worse," and see if we can grow from there?




This isn't a simple problem and it isn't going to be a simple solution. 

I'm not saying woke men will save us, I said woke men can be allies and help to point out harassment in the moment without being called a cock tease, bitch, or worse. 

If you look at the history of how social change happens, (I apologize, but I'm going to be USA centric here) you will see in the USA that the end of slavery was voted on by white men (the only ones who could vote) in 1865. Black men voting happened in 1870, again voted on by white men. Women voting didn't happen until 1920 (mostly voted on by white men). 

Those of us who want change can make it uncomfortable for those who do not, but history shows that it is much more effective if we have allies within the group that currently holds the majority of power to make lasting change for any issue.

This is a social revolution and it is going to take a swell of action from women and men to make it happen. If we educate our boys, recognize women as equals, close the pay gap, stop looking away from uncomfortable situations that we know are wrong, take steps every day to respect every person's right to live without fear, then we're on the right track to making change happen. Just one piece of that is having people with privilege/power stop turning a blind eye to the things that happen around them and speak up.

Edit: Consequences and deterrence would also be a part of an overall solution.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RedJenOSU

lowkey13 said:


> ... how about we empower women to speak out, and show other men that there can be consequences (social) for their behavior ... which might act as a deterrent for all of those non-woke men?




Yes, and consequences... I've even edited the previous post to add consequences.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ancalagon

malcmerlyn said:


> I have pondered a lot since yesterday concerning Sean
> 
> 
> In France we have the *Presumption of innocence* : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
> 
> 
> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.
> 
> 
> We are not vigilantes, we are not here to make justice by ourselves, this whole EN thing seems to me a witch hunt and the victims should have sued him legally instead of trying to turn the internet against SPF. I talk with full knowledge of this kind of witch hunt because the situation where SPF is is well know to me, I have been targeted by this kind of attacks (at a lower scale) and I have lost friends in the course of it. Still nobody has sued me or brought proof I am what they said at this time. Still, I am the loser because now in France, I have difficulties making new friends or finding players.
> 
> I also talked to two friends of him (Jodi Black and Len Pimentel) and I have made my decision. Il will support Sean because justice is not on the internet to make but on the legal system.



But Sean admitted to wrongdoing  (which took courage!).  Is that presumption of innocence still relevant?


----------



## Ancalagon

I think part of the solution is changing the value that a man's worth is based on sexual prowess/"conquest".  If society sees people who "can't get laid" as losers, it adds pressure to men to act like they constantly have to be looking for a "score".

(Even the language used is telling, isn't it?)

This cultural value is corrosive and harms both men and women.


----------



## UselessTriviaMan

DemoMonkey said:


> Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? *[AVENGERS SPOILER REDACTED]* sad? What level of sad are we talking here?
> 
> And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary.
> 
> However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened.



Completely unrelated to everything else on this thread, _*DAMN YOU DEMOMONKEY.

*_I had, up until your post, completely avoided ANY spoilers for the Avengers: Infinity War movie. Posting such a major damn spoiler a couple of days after the movie's debut? Serious dick move, man.


----------



## Zak S

Ancalagon said:


> If society sees people who "can't get laid" as losers, it adds pressure to men to act like they constantly have to be looking for a "score".



No it adds pressure for them to _actually_ score--or appear to.

Merely_ looking but failing_ is considered a bad look. 

Which is also an extension of a general cultural value: clearly trying to get something and failing makes you look like a loser. 

Anyway:

While societal change is great, the fact is Sean Patrick Fannon got caught harassing people long ago--objectively, it was recorded, there was no grey area--and nothing was done about it and there were no social consequences and *then* all this stuff happened afterward. Even allowing for a vast cultural shift in gender norms, accusations of any kind not being investigated throughly is always going to be a problem, especially in the RPG community because most apolitical gamers consider it a distraction from Just Playing Games and because most more politicized gamers would rather just believe the accusations that keep them in their happy place and ignore the ones they don't.


----------



## Dualazi

Hussar said:


> But, again, that's not what's being talked about.  We're talking about behavior that occurred AT conventions.  So, just because he didn't drive drunk while he DM'd a game, doesn't mean that he might not suffer any repercussions for driving home drunk every night after the convention.  After all, there's a REASON that many Con's have a drunk bus and a hotel reservation close to the con.  (I'm talking about smaller con's of course here, but, even larger con's generally have hotels nearby and means for getting there)
> 
> So, yeah, it's absolutely the responsibility of a Con organizer to recognize issues.  If someone is a convicted sex offender, then perhaps not inviting that person to speak at your all ages convention is a good idea.  If someone has a history of harassment, drunkenness or otherwise poor behavior, then absolutely that should impact whether you get invited to the con.





But it's not though. The things like the drunk bus are a courtesy, and one that they're not obligated to provide. I'd also agree with your first example, on the basis of there being a conviction. If they have been tried and found guilty, then absolutely they should be screened for such things. My issue is with people who have not been tried, or when they have allegedly been engaging in behavior that's either creepy or rude.

Additionally, how do you even begin to rationalize your and others suggestions, logistically? Unless one of the organizers personally knows the individual in question, are they just supposed to trawl message boards for rumors of things that might disqualify their involvement?





Hussar said:


> However, the raised awareness does impact behavior.  There's a very good reason we have amended our language in recent years.




...does it? I'm seriously asking, as I did prior, if you or anyone else has conclusive proof that these policies have actually lead to a reduction in incidents/crime. Because if you don't have that proof, then this is just baseless wishful thinking.





Hussar said:


> This one I don't understand.  Why would con's need to have a higher rate of harassment for us to do anything?
> 
> Doesn't the fact that there is harassment going on, and it wasn't being addressed in the past make it enough for us to step up and start doing something?




Nope. It's relevant because the tone and implication of the thread's title implies that this is a problem within the tabletop community, and it isn't (until proven otherwise), which makes it a societal problem at large. Thing is, this isn't a website that focuses on society at large, is it? It's about tabletop gaming, and therefore if the rate is not markedly different from the greater picture of society, then saying that there is more work to be done in it is misleading at best.



the_redbeard said:


> Besides outing people with opinions like yours to the rest of the community, the publishing of these revelations has lead to public introspection, acknowledgement of harm done, a public apology, and an expression to change.




Outing? good to know you consider yourself an inquisitor, but I've not exactly been subtle about my opinions before, so I doubt anyone considers my notions here to be revolutionary. It's also telling that you appreciate "outing" people whose only real crime in your eyes is asking for evidence of your assertions. Certainly makes your position look stable.



Gradine said:


> You say "mob justice", I say "social consequences for bad behavior". Note that in neither case do the laws or rules of American criminal justice really apply. There was a really great "Would you hire this babysitter?" example from earlier upthread, the point of which being we all make personal judgments about other people and who we do or do not want to associate with ourselves all the time, often based on either the words of others we trust (or at least trust more than the individual in question) or our own initial impressions, which are often based on our own preconceived biases based on an incredibly small sample size of the behaviors and actions that make up that unique individual. Show me a person who insists that they _never_ do this anyone, _ever,_ and I'll show you a person who is lying to themselves.




There's a big difference between choosing not to associate with an individual and denying that same individual the right to engage with society, in part or whole, which is typically what happens. If people don't want to listen to the presentations or read the works of someone like SPF, that's their call, but there's a vocal group clamoring for total exclusion from the hobby itself until some undefined point where they are satisfied with apparent repentance.



Gradine said:


> I'll come back to the "no oversight or restraint" as well, because that's pretty fairly (if implicitly) covered in the parts of my post that you did not quote, which is that the conversation about what consequences Mr. Fannon should face is very nuanced, and because the only consequences that will ever really apply are either those that are self-imposed or made by individual persons, by necessity they cannot be either codified nor institutionalized. Thus, the oversight and restraint that exists exists as it does through groupthink; social consequences are always a democracy.




Yeah, and there are some incredibly relevant reasons why a direct democracy is rarely if ever used; it's an incredibly inept and dangerous way to govern, which is exactly my point. _You_ can have a nuanced view of things, but there are numerous people here and elsewhere who are simply out for blood. A great example of this is one of the prior articles on enword about harassment at a convention; the cops were called, the harasser later made an apology, and IIRC the victim also said she considered the matter settled. This wasn't enough for several posters, that would crop up in any thread about future works from the individual's company, because despite the matter already being handled to the greatest realistic extent that it could, they still sought to impose their vigilante justice to "send a message". I personally don't doubt that if given the chance they'd run him out of the hobby entirely. Simply put, this is why things like a strong judiciary exist; we don't lop off the hands of thieves even if people think that would "send a message", because we recognize that sating the vengeful whims of the populace isn't really justice.


----------



## prosfilaes

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In public discourse, though, the standards are more relaxed.  All we have are journalistic practices & ethics and our own personal moral compass for guidance.  IMHO, attempting to apply an evidentiary standard to everyday public discourse is misguided at best- most people lack the training to apply or adhere to such rules, and there is no neutral arbiter as to what can or cannot be considered when participants disagree.




Yes, the standards are more relaxed. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "evidentiary standard", but I don't see an alternative. If you want or need to know whether something is true, there's not really another choice besides applying the evidence available to you. If someone makes a serious claim, it should be backed up somehow. Life, to some extent, gives most people the tools to deal with evidence; as people mention with the babysitter and other examples above, that's what wise people do, take the evidence available to them, weigh it and act on it as the weight of the evidence and seriousness of the matter demand.

The same argument against arguing based on evidence could apply to the jury room; 12 average people, and no neutral arbiter in the room as to what can be considered. I see no problem asking people outside the jury room to think about evidence, to sift good evidence from bad and use that to come to a decision; that's simply good life practice.


----------



## Guest 6801328

prosfilaes said:


> Yes, the standards are more relaxed. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "evidentiary standard", but I don't see an alternative. If you want or need to know whether something is true, there's not really another choice besides applying the evidence available to you.




And I would add, the role of journalists is to:
1. Provide such evidence to the public
2. Maintain their credibility of doing so objectively


----------



## kenmarable

Reported.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "evidentiary standard",




Which is part of what I’m talking about.  To be used in court, testimony has to be evaluated by a third party- usually a judge- to see if the jury will ever hear it.  That third party must consider probative value, risk of prejudice, hearsay rules for admission or exclusion, privacy rules, privilege rules, pattern exceptions, rules against self-incrimination, and so much more.

If it is heard and subsequently disallowed, that person can then order that the testimony may not be considered in evaluating guilt or innocence.  If it is used against the judge’s order, the sentence may be vacated and a mistrial declared.

Now, to a certain extent, that judicial function is performed in journalism by editors.  But they’re not held to the same standard for neutrality as judges, and because their job is ultimately to sell newspapers, magazines or clicks, their profit motive could be seen as a form of bias.  And they have no real power to remove info from consideration, once presented.

Which is why people who are insisting on trial-level verification and veracity tests- as well as an utterly ridiculous “trial first before reporting” standard- are essentially asking for the highly improbable, if not outright impossible.


----------



## Jeanneliza

1%erBiker said:


> Wow, all of you left SJW wannabes need to 'check your white privilege' and take your own advice.
> I'm a former musician who has banged well over 200 good looking women, and most of the time, they were trying to get all up in MY pants. NOT the other way around.
> Hell, women take one look at my bike and want to try taking me home all night long.
> PS, please, get smart with me because I'M A BIKER, DUDE. 1%er for LIFE. Dont say anything on here you wouldn't say to me or my brothers faces, keyboard warriors.




Wow so you need to be intimidating mr. tough guy, with implied threats? Also you first post here ever, bragging how cool you are with all those women, making some of these guys here feel even more inadequate? I hope you feel better about yourself but the need to brag tells me maybe not so much. And yes I would say this to you and any number of biker buddies faces why not? You all going to "beat me up". Laugh at me? What exactly do you think you have the power to do precisely? And SJW seriously? That the best you got? In my day we called the social activism, and it changed things,  will again. It is also being called a decent human being. But I'll be gracious and trust none of those 200 women passed you and STD.
But then you have clearly identified yourself as the problem. Anyone who speaks out on behalf of victims you want to sit down and shut up. Won't happen here, bigger and better guys than you have tried, and yet we "SJW' fight on.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

1%erBiker said:


> Lol that's fine woman, we got 1%er Biker Women too, and trust me, you ain't as mean and bad ass as they are, I've seen biker club women stomp sjws at rallys like it was nothing. Try talking  to the outlaws or hells angels women, see how bad you all are, keyboard Xena.
> 
> Til then shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
> 
> I probably have slept with all your female friends and you are just jealous, clearly.




Still playing the tough guy keyboard warrior yourself. And as I thought, you think if I spoke to your face you would do me violence, or your "tough female biker friends" would. And why would I trust you on any level since again, you have made it clear you wish to control through the threat of or actual violence. Do you seriously think you have made any point here except to hold yourself up as a clear illustration of the problem, and what women deal with every day? Thank you for that. Folks I point out here to you exhibit L, and those still wanting to argue the problem is women, get back to me after you go visit mr tough guy here.


----------



## kenmarable

Jeanneliza said:


> Still playing the tough guy keyboard warrior yourself. And as I thought, you think if I spoke to your face you would do me violence, or your "tough female biker friends" would. And why would I trust you on any level since again, you have made it clear you wish to control through the threat of or actual violence. Do you seriously think you have made any point here except to hold yourself up as a clear illustration of the problem, and what women deal with every day? Thank you for that. Folks I point out here to you exhibit L, and those still wanting to argue the problem is women, get back to me after you go visit mr tough guy here.




As lowkey13 said, best to just not engage. He's so far beyond the rules of the forum that when Morrus gets a chance, he'll likely clean it out. Some trolls aren't worth engaging. They aren't trying to discuss in good faith, they are just crapping all over the thread hoping to get people to argue with them so they can get their jollies. Moderators will take care of it.


----------



## Nikosandros

kenmarable said:


> As lowkey13 said, best to just not engage. He's so far beyond the rules of the forum that when Morrus gets a chance, he'll likely clean it out. Some trolls aren't worth engaging. They aren't trying to discuss in good faith, they are just crapping all over the thread hoping to get people to argue with them so they can get their jollies. Moderators will take care of it.




He's so over the top, that it looks like a parody. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's real.


----------



## kenmarable

Nikosandros said:


> He's so over the top, that it looks like a parody. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's real.




Yeah, normally parodies are actually funny.


Oh, and, Morrus (or other mod), when you do get a chance to clean this up, I'm fine if you delete my responses about this as well to further remove this troll's digital record.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO

deleted - washed my hands and face and am never posting again unless talking about D&D!​


----------



## Jeanneliza

1%erBiker said:


> Lol that's fine woman, we got 1%er Biker Women too, and trust me, you ain't as mean and bad ass as they are, I've seen biker club women stomp sjws at rallys like it was nothing. Try talking  to the outlaws or hells angels women, see how bad you all are, keyboard Xena.
> 
> Til then shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
> 
> I probably have slept with all your female friends and you are just jealous, clearly.






kenmarable said:


> As lowkey13 said, best to just not engage. He's so far beyond the rules of the forum that when Morrus gets a chance, he'll likely clean it out. Some trolls aren't worth engaging. They aren't trying to discuss in good faith, they are just crapping all over the thread hoping to get people to argue with them so they can get their jollies. Moderators will take care of it.




Advice seen, noted and acted on. Sorry just nothing gets me going like wannabe tough guys trying to drive people out, shut them up or shut them down. And I as a grandmother do know that at some point they need to be told their tactics don't work everywhere.  He mentioned dinner, I should have invited him, should I mention I keep my Writer's Guide to Poisons next to my cookbooks?


----------



## LazarusKane

Imaculata said:


> This is not a courtroom. Accusations do not need to be proven for Enworld to take action against a person who has been accused by multiple individuals of inappropriate conduct.
> 
> This was already illustrated earlier in this thread with the example of a babysitter who is accused of inappropriate conduct towards children. *You don't wait for evidence, you get your children away from that person as soon as the accusations come in*.




See, that´s  the problem: The "innocent until proven" gets reversed, the babysitter has to prove (to you) that the accusations against her/him are wrong.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## kenmarable

Jeanneliza said:


> Advice seen, noted and acted on. Sorry just nothing gets me going like wannabe tough guys trying to drive people out, shut them up or shut them down. And I as a grandmother do know that at some point they need to be told their tactics don't work everywhere.  He mentioned dinner, I should have invited him, should I mention I keep my Writer's Guide to Poisons next to my cookbooks?




No worries. There's definitely places to engage and shut them down, but thankfully here the moderators handle it very thoroughly. So the thread will stink for a little while, but pretty soon it will be back to how it was, possibly with little sign it ever even happened.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO

I did edit, I was referring to posts on site making $, not people. I don't see why this thread is still live, please please please kill it and I'm done with it.


----------



## Doug McCrae

1%erBiker said:


> Nascar Tabletop RPG.



It's only at this point I twigged that you're trolling. It's getting harder and harder to detect parody these days.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## kenmarable

LazarusKane said:


> See, that´s  the problem: The "innocent until proven" gets reversed, the babysitter has to prove (to you) that the accusations against her/him are wrong.




The way I see it is basic error theory. You aren't going to be 100% perfect in determining exactly what happened (sure, we need to try to do our best and get it as close as possible to that, but it's an asymptote we will never achieve). So which is worse: a false positive or a false negative? 

With the babysitter example, that's really, really easy. Leaving the kids with a babysitter that you incorrectly believed is safe is FAR worse than a babysitter falsely being out of that job. 

Sexual harassment and especially in regards to conventions can be quite similar. Which is worse incorrectly letting a serial harasser continue to attend and sexually harass many, many women, or having someone not be able to attend a convention for false reasons? In both cases, people are harmed, but most of us would say the harm of not being able to attend a convention is far less than the harm of many women being sexually harassed. 

(Yes, yes, I'm not saying we always believe no matter what, that some due diligence goes a long way to sorting out the false accusations - just look at when someone tried to trick the Washington Post with a false accusation back in November - but the point is that sometimes we will be wrong, and it's important to take seriously which way we would rather be wrong. With the babysitter, too bad - the risks are too high, many parents might not even bother letting them try to prove their innocence. With sexual harassment, especially at large gatherings like conventions, the potential harm is high enough that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't safe enough, and putting at least some burden on the accused to prove their innocence is a very rational response. Besides, we aren't talking prison here, where the standards should be very different.)


----------



## DM Magic

1%erBiker said:


> I ain't trolling dude, Ive got the core book and every add on to the Nascar Tabletop RPG ever made, including the Skoal Special Limited Edition Dice Kit and the 20th Anniversary Supplement for bringing in new sponsors like Trojans, Viagra and Miller Lite.




Piratecat?


----------



## Advilaar

Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.

- Do they create a ban list of everyone that has ever been even accused of harassing someone? Who decides? ENworld? Kataku? 
- Is this ban retroactive? Can someone decide they were harassed at a convention 3 months ago and still get someone banned when they could have told show management??
- Can the convention be responsible if this happened in a room party in someone's hotel room and not the event?
- Are we applying the same standards for VIPs as well as the common con-goer? Could a Gary Gygax get away with stuff while Joe Obnoxious McFeely gets thrown out and ostracized?

Already if you are being obnoxious, they will ask you nicely to leave. If you go off about that or you are really causing drama, they kick you out and do not refund your money.

They have in BIG ALL CAPS already not to mess with the cosplay girls. Don't. 

What else can they really, realistically do? They are a trade convention. Not baby sitters.


----------



## Catulle

HawaiiSteveO said:


> I don't see why this thread is still live, please please please kill it and I'm done with it.




If you're not seeing it, that might demonstrate a need for it to stay, despite the desperate, transparent and utterly predictable attempts to get it shut down.


----------



## prosfilaes

LazarusKane said:


> See, that´s  the problem: The "innocent until proven" gets reversed, the babysitter has to prove (to you) that the accusations against her/him are wrong.




So you're saying that employers must hire someone unless there's proof that they're going to be a bad fit? Microsoft doesn't have the right to ask you for evidence that you're a good programmer, they must assume it unless they can prove otherwise?



Advilaar said:


> Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.
> 
> - Do they create a ban list of everyone that has ever been even accused of harassing someone? Who decides? ENworld? Kataku?




Why should they let serial harassers come to the con? The basic question is fair, but the implication is not; a convention has a responsibility to exclude people known to cause problems. Part of the problem with sexual harassment as a con problem is that it tends to be somewhat discrete; I suspect you start a fist fight in the middle of Gen Con one year, and you'll find yourself excluded from more cons than Gen Con. If something can be covered up, the cons often want to cover it up.



> - Are we applying the same standards for VIPs as well as the common con-goer? Could a Gary Gygax get away with stuff while Joe Obnoxious McFeely gets thrown out and ostracized?




Of course we're applying the same standards for VIPs. If any thing, the standards should be higher, since they're representing the community and if nobody stops it, they'll show up at con after con (in the way someone who doesn't work in the industry can't afford to) and cause problems.


----------



## prosfilaes

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is part of what I’m talking about. To be used in court, testimony has to be evaluated by a third party- usually a judge- to see if the jury will ever hear it. That third party must consider probative value, risk of prejudice, hearsay rules for admission or exclusion, privacy rules, privilege rules, pattern exceptions, rules against self-incrimination, and so much more.
> 
> If it is heard and subsequently disallowed, that person can then order that the testimony may not be considered in evaluating guilt or innocence. If it is used against the judge’s order, the sentence may be vacated and a mistrial declared.




There's not necessarily a jury, though; if the judge makes the final call, there is no third party involved, and he's in the same shoes as when he orders the jury to ignore testimony; you can file away and ignore, but not forget. Not "if it's used", but "if it can be shown to have been used", and good luck with that, with either a jury or judge trial.

A lot of that I would dismiss as arbitrary legal rules, that may bear some rational connection to reasonable evidence evaluation, but also bear a lot of weirdness and irrelevance to reality from being developed from years of arbitrary rule formation and precedence. There's also trial rules, like hearsay, that work well when you can subpoena witness, but not so well for the average person.



> Which is why people who are insisting on trial-level verification and veracity tests- as well as an utterly ridiculous “trial first before reporting” standard- are essentially asking for the highly improbable, if not outright impossible.




Real life is not a trial; that doesn't mean we should have evidentiary standards, but doesn't mean we can't copy them from trials, and they're not going to as rigid and formal as trial ones. Yes, such things are asking for the highly improbable, even impossible.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Advilaar said:


> Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.
> 
> - Do they create a ban list of everyone that has ever been even accused of harassing someone? Who decides? ENworld? Kataku?
> - Is this ban retroactive? Can someone decide they were harassed at a convention 3 months ago and still get someone banned when they could have told show management??
> - Can the convention be responsible if this happened in a room party in someone's hotel room and not the event?
> - Are we applying the same standards for VIPs as well as the common con-goer? Could a Gary Gygax get away with stuff while Joe Obnoxious McFeely gets thrown out and ostracized?
> 
> Already if you are being obnoxious, they will ask you nicely to leave. If you go off about that or you are really causing drama, they kick you out and do not refund your money.
> 
> They have in BIG ALL CAPS already not to mess with the cosplay girls. Don't.
> 
> What else can they really, realistically do? They are a trade convention. Not baby sitters.




Governments, venues, cons and similar institutions and organizations can and DO maintain such lists, for all kinds of offenses.  Certain soccer fans are on restricted travel and admissions lists.  Sports and entertainment venues maintain lists of persons not to be admitted.  Judge Roy More was on the radar of mall security in his local environs for behavior that creeped out young women.  There’s the infamous “No Fly” lists.

Most of those lists are assembled without benefit of trial, just accumulating available data.  Actual arrests or trial results are a bonus, but not necessary prerequisites.

And sadly, YES, Big Kahunas get away with things normal Joes and Janes simply can’t.  Of course, society is full of privilege disparities.


----------



## Advilaar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Governments, venues, cons and similar institutions and organizations can and DO maintain such lists, for all kinds of offenses.  Certain soccer fans are on restricted travel and admissions lists.  Sports and entertainment venues maintain lists of persons not to be admitted.  Judge Roy More was on the radar of mall security in his local environs for behavior that creeped out young women.  There’s the infamous “No Fly” lists.
> 
> Most of those lists are assembled without benefit of trial, just accumulating available data.  Actual arrests or trial results are a bonus, but not necessary prerequisites.
> 
> And sadly, YES, Big Kahunas get away with things normal Joes and Janes simply can’t.  Of course, society is full of privilege disparities.




Precisely. 

At the end of the day you run into two sets of rules.

You or I get drunk and obnoxious, we get told to leave. If we do not go quietly, we get banned at least until the next convention. If we go WAY overboard, we get perma banned.

Fannon may have an okay following with his stuff, but he is really small fries compared to the WotC guys, Paizo guys, or the celebrities that show up. Him losing EnWorld hurts him worse than Enworld is hurt. But what if it is the director of WotC? Or one of the main dudes at Paizo? A loved fan celebrity like Peter Mayhew, Mark Hamill, or Patrick Stewart? Someone who can say I bring X people, I know your real name and company and refuse to give you tidbits that make your website/ event profitable any more and make life rough. 

I guarantee that person would be treated different.


----------



## kenmarable

Advilaar said:


> Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.




What can they do? An awful lot. Having clearly stated harassment policies is a good start, but certainly not the end of it.

Here is a good overview but in general:

1. Have a very clear harassment policy that not only says harassment will not be tolerated, but makes it clear how to report it, what the convention will do when it is reported, and what potential consequences will be.

(Side note: For one thing, they need to absolutely NOT be something like the S.T.O.P. policy that Green Ronin pushed recently that would require a victim to personally confront their harasser/abuser before the convention had to do anything. Among other issues it had, that is a fine example of a *bad* policy.)

2. Make the policy clearly visible as much as possible (on the website, in the program book, posted throughout the convention)

3. Train staff on how to handle harassment situations. This includes both "on the floor" staff on what to do when someone comes to them with a report, as well as for those in charge in how to properly research and respond to a report. (There are many experts in this and plenty of resources on the internet. If you are running a con, you need to be responsible enough to educate yourself on how to handle this stuff.)

4. Have clearly identified staff that victims can easily find and report to (who, as per #3, already know what to do and don't "need to go find someone" or something)

5. Take reports seriously. (Seems obvious, but this is where many, many conventions have failed in the past.)

6. Be decisive in response, even if the staff knows the person, even if they think he's actually a nice guy, even if they are a VIP. This can include removal from the convention and even police reports and/or permanent banning in very serious situations.

And that's just the basics, at that link above, as well as many, many resources out there, it goes into a lot of detail on what conventions can and should do. They aren't babysitters, but they are responsible for basic security at their gathering. If they cannot handle the responsibility of the above items, then they should not be running a convention.

But also to address a couple specific questions:



Advilaar said:


> - Is this ban retroactive? Can someone decide they were harassed at a convention 3 months ago and still get someone banned when they could have told show management??
> - Can the convention be responsible if this happened in a room party in someone's hotel room and not the event?




If someone reports after the fact, it should absolutely 100% be taken as seriously as a report during a convention. It's a bit easier since there's not a potential of an immediate threat, but it is still serious. Considering the sensitive nature of these issues and how overwhelmingly poorly conventions (and society) have traditionally handled these issues since pretty much forever, basically telling a victim "You should have told us before, now we won't take you seriously" is absurd and wrong.

Secondly, a convention may not be responsible for what happens in a room party or in someone's hotel room (in the sense of being able to blame them), but they are absolutely 100% responsible for how they respond afterwards.

(And to reiterate from above - VIPs need to be held to the same standard. Yes, some have failed to do that, but others are quite willing to. And even if some conventions haven't held VIPs to the same standard, they are wrong and need to change their policy or attendees need to refuse to go there anymore.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

prosfilaes said:


> There's not necessarily a jury, though; if the judge makes the final call, there is no third party involved...



The judge is ALWAYS a (presumptively neutral) third party- the first and second being the defendant and the prosecution/victim/complainant.  If there is no jury, the judge then adds their usual role as trier of fact to his or her duties.



> ...and he's in the same shoes as when he orders the jury to ignore testimony; you can file away and ignore, but not forget. Not "if it's used", but "if it can be shown to have been used", and good luck with that, with either a jury or judge trial.




Verdicts get tossed every day for being decided by facts not in evidence, including things that were stricken.



> A lot of that I would dismiss as arbitrary legal rules, that may bear some rational connection to reasonable evidence evaluation, but also bear a lot of weirdness and irrelevance to reality from being developed from years of arbitrary rule formation and precedence. There's also trial rules, like hearsay, that work well when you can subpoena witness, but not so well for the average person.




They’re really not as arbitrary as they seem to an outsider.

Let’s look at a definition of Hearsay:


> Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.




“Bob told me Mary said she killed Steve.” Is hearsay.

Noe here’s a list of more than 20 exceptions in Federal courts (state courts may differ) to the rule that hearsay is to be excluded.  Note that the last one is a vague catchall that goes to Rule 807.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_807

Do any of the exceptions apply?  That’s situational, and a matter for a judge to decide.  And if the first 20+ don’t apply, Rule 807 still might.  And should we apply the Federal or the state standard?  What if the reported incident is in another jurisdiction?  Another country?

Without a judge, trying to use a hearsay standard in journalism or everyday discourse would be pointless.  



> Real life is not a trial; that doesn't mean we should have evidentiary standards, but doesn't mean we can't copy them from trials, and they're not going to as rigid and formal as trial ones. Yes, such things are asking for the highly improbable, even impossible.




Because we don’t have judges, copying those rules is problematic if not impossible.  At best, we have the rules of ethics in professional journalism to help weed things out, coupled with our own personal ethoi.

(Which is a major reason why you shouldn’t be a passive consumer of news.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In case you missed it, moderators have a whole bag of “Shh!” 
[video=youtube;FRG-RBZBTZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRG-RBZBTZI[/video]


----------



## prosfilaes

Advilaar said:


> I guarantee that person would be treated different.




That's an entirely different discussion, though. Yes, if someone is rich enough or famous enough, they can sometimes literally get away with murder. That's not an argument about murder as much as how we treat the rich and famous. And that's part of the reason for discussion like this one, so that cons can actually point to reasons for refusing problematic individuals with enough celebrity.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

I do want to thank the mods, and a good many others engaged in an effort at real discussion here. I also want to apologize for giving in to the temptation for engaging with, well some days the urge to play Whack a Troll is just overwhelming.

That said I have continued to follow, and earlier Jen and lowkey were working and finding common ground, the points they could agree on. 
But I also see a lot of side railing into level of evidence, fairness to the accused, all valid concerns but I sense that real people really getting hurt is being lost in the details. If this isn't addressed, people who are afraid of these kind of things STOP going. I understand those in the business may often have professional obligations to be there, and that makes their choice even harder. 
I understand there has ALWAYS been women in the gaming community and business. And their experiences from reports I read and conversations I have had pretty much mirror the larger population.
I saw the comment about it not being any bigger of a problem at gaming Cons than anywhere else. That is probably true. But other communities, the larger society are also being forced to confront some of these same issues, the gaming community is no EXCEPTION.
Some seem to be offended that RPG publishers want to broaden their audience beyond what they consider "traditional" and that these efforts are "pandering". Common business sense is if you want your business to grow you expand your customer base. You can choose to boycott companies that have made these decisions if it offends you that deeply, you can boycott Cons you feel are to restrictive with their policies(victims will boycott the ones that aren't restrictive enough to keep them reasonably safe), but actively fighting to keep systems in place that create victims while semantics are ironed out just kind of makes you a d*&@.
Oh and to the babysitter analogy? Sorry but my child/grandchild's safety trump's your right to a presumption of innocence, especially since I also bear the financial cost of that risk.


----------



## Gradine

Man, I ended up falling down a pretty dark rabbit hole trying to figure out where all of these trolls are coming from. And I didn't even find anything


----------



## Silverlion

Here are a few simple rules. I am sure I've inadvertently broken some in the past but I am trying to do better. 

1. Don't harass people. 
2. If someone is interested in you, _they will let you know._ Generally telling you so.
    If not. They will also let you know. Stop trying to push things. 
3. Be inclusive, but don't be so inclusive you put up with sexual harassers, modern day racists, or Nazi's. 
4. Protect your gaming friends as you would a brother or sister. If you can't do that maybe its time to find a  new group to play with. This advice can also apply to strangers at cons. Treat them well. 
5. "I like you as a friend." Is a GOOD thing. Friends are good. Do not expect, demand, or require anything  else than what is offered with those words. 
6. Above all else be kind.


----------



## Advilaar

Gradine said:


> Man, I ended up falling down a pretty dark rabbit hole trying to figure out where all of these trolls are coming from. And I didn't even find anything




A lot of the actual trolls are just single guys that are afraid they will get messed over in a witch hunt if they hit on someone and that someone rebuffs. It is okay to be afraid the atmosphere my change to where meeting up with that geeky girl may not be possible. It is okay not to want to have to fend off aggressive dudes when you want to roll d20s. Both have valid concerns.

Now, there are a lot of militant, irrational folks on places like YouTube and other media that have huge followings making ad money off agitating this stuff on both sides.  Feminism and MRA is a religion. Both have valid points, but miss things in translation and the need to have attention and money.. These people dox people, destroy careers and lives ON BOTH SIDES. That scares people.

Not like a con is exactly Plenty of Fish or OK Cupid which would be a cheaper, safer, and better venue. At least there you know if someone there is seeking or not if finding a mate is a concern. That's how I found my geeky, beautiful lady!

At the end of the day, though, there is responsibility. Only what you can do. That's not good enough for some people. That's too strict for others. It does not apply to another group. And, it will NEVER apply to everyone.

I just say let's roll some d20s and be done with it! You will never get accused of anything if you do that. Take your geek girl with you 

And let the people who make the big bucks (the organizers) handle all this nonsense.


----------



## Eltab

prosfilaes said:


> So ... women should be ladies and not be at cons?



Where did you get _the second half_ of that from?  


> I have no idea what standards you're referring to



Fair enough; creeps falsely claim to be Gentlemen so they can target a victim.

A Gentleman's behavior demonstrates these character qualities:
- Loyalty
- Servant-Leadership
- Kindness
- Humility
- Purity
- Honesty
- Self-Discipline
- Excellence
- Integrity
- Perseverance

I'm pulling this from the book "Raising a Modern-Day Knight", and will recommend it, rather than post a wall of text trying to summarize it.


----------



## prosfilaes

Eltab said:


> Where did you get _the second half_ of that from?




There have been many standards for ladies over the years, and few of them have encouraged women to mingle in male spaces, especially unescorted. I'm pretty sure an actual Lady, an actual member of the nobility with proper claim to that title, historically would not go anywhere unescorted.



> I'm pulling this from the book "Raising a Modern-Day Knight", and will recommend it, rather than post a wall of text trying to summarize it.




A pretty list of virtues, but hardly a coherent set of guidelines as you've posted it. I prefer to go with Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, and tell people to be excellent to each other.

The real problems are that's not the set of rules for being a gentlemen; that's a set of rules that someone has come up with. And there's no reason for these rules to be gendered.


----------



## Rygar

kenmarable said:


> What can they do? An awful lot. Having clearly stated harassment policies is a good start, but certainly not the end of it.
> 
> Here is a good overview but in general:
> 
> ...




The problem there is that beyond some relative simple and common rules, harassment policies generally end up being trivial to exploit for gain or a legal liability.

Since a lot of harassment uses a very loose definition of the term which gives advantage to the accuser, widespread implementation of these policies can and will end up being tools.  Want to win the Magic/Pokémon/Board Game tournament?  Have friends watch the competition and then accuse your greatest threat(s) of harassment.  People cheat at these events *constantly*, this is a better tool than any other they can use today.

In a similar vein, these venues will risk being targets for lawsuits with today's loose definitions being used.  What is termed harassment by many people on the internet is very different than what the law considers to be harassment.  The Honey Badgers lawsuit is a good example.  I doubt most conventions can survive more than two or three of these events.


----------



## Eltab

Jeanneliza said:


> ... side railing into level of evidence, fairness to the accused, all valid concerns but ...



It may look like 'side railing' to insist that accusations be backed up with corroboration but in fact it is a preventative measure.  
The greatest injustice I've heard of is: Jerk "She can't prove it, it's all made up."  Security "Yeah, just two people's say-so.  Fine, go away and don't bother us again, both of you."

I'd rather see the jerk have to explain the accusation, _and_ her friend's (better: plural friends') description of what they saw / heard, _and_ a cell cam recording by a bystander Good Samaritan, _and_ a description from a got-involved Good Samaritan, _and_ whatever can be built into the situation beforehand so the accusation - read: description of 'what happened' - has weight behind it, while the false denial does not.

It's not like we have to 're-invent the wheel' from scratch, each time.  We can learn from past incidents - and the patterns in those events.

You mentioned that you thought it beyond the pale that you should / must carry a cell phone / camera.  As a counter-point, consider the experience of policemen wearing bodycams when interacting with teens.  In various events, the body cams have provided evidence that:
- an officer abused his authority -or-
- the teen tried to taunt the officer into causing an incident -or-
- the teen was lying through his teeth about an incident that never happened -or-
- the officer lied in his paperwork to cover up an earlier mistake / wrongful action -or-
- the teen caused the incident despite the officer's actions
Without the video evidence, we would be back to the situation I described above: who to believe, if either, and why?

We want to see harrassment go to extinction. Causing that includes defensive action on the part of potential targets, and offensive action against the perps.


----------



## Charrua13

Sean, speaking of "come collect your friends", this dude has spent a LOT of time and energy about LIBEL, as if it has one piddly-dink to do with the issue of making gaming spaces free of harrassment for women.

And then, he threw in a false equivalency very much in the vein of "all people matter" and "it happens to men too", completely ignoring the power dynamic between men and women.  And, overall, said crappy things.

Come collect this friend.



caljai said:


> Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.
> 
> First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).
> 
> When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
> I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.
> 
> Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!
> 
> The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.


----------



## Charrua13

Sean, come collect this dude, whose misogyny was so rank that even Morrus made a comment about it.



Thomas Bowman said:


> And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.
> 
> Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"


----------



## Charrua13

Sean, come collect this dude, who has been making the "you can't expect men to change" series of arguments as a way to eschew men of their responsibility in harrassment because "you can't change them" (or whatever actual words he's using...I can't be bothered to rehash it cuz it's that awful).



Dualazi said:


> Yeah, thankfully the message is "witch hunts shouldn't destroy people's careers" it seems, which is a pretty good one on the whole. Convention organizers are under no impetus, nor should they be, to conduct background checks that transcend beyond the legal sphere into the realm of rumors and maybes. Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf. If a speaker they invite goes and drives under the influence after his/her time-slot, it's not on the convention to screen further speakers for a history of drunkenness.
> 
> 
> 
> Two things on this note:
> 
> 1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.
> 
> 2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering.
> 
> 
> 
> Unambiguously the nineteen women to be disbelieved. Our entire justice system (assuming you're American) is built around the presumption of innocence, and yes, the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free than to put innocent people in jail, or in this case have their public reputation destroyed. Mob justice is never sufficient in any scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we'd all enjoy it if you went back to not posting, since you seem to be unable to have a conversation with dissenting opinions without resorting to personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, there is no fence. You either support mob justice with no oversight or restraint, or you support the "status quo" that realizes why this is an incredibly bad idea. Because that's what you're advocating here, you can haw and hum over "consequences", but unless you have some grand plan as to how those will be carried out in a fair and just fashion you're just sidestepping the issue.


----------



## Charrua13

Sean, this dude went out of his way to talk to your peeps, and blatantly ignored your statement so he can make a point about how America's rules suck, France's are better, and he doesn't believe misogyny is a thing.  I mean, he thinks he's making some other grandiose point, but he isn't.

Come collect your friend.



malcmerlyn said:


> I have pondered a lot since yesterday concerning Sean
> 
> 
> In France we have the *Presumption of innocence* : the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
> 
> 
> That means that accusations have been made on the internet but they have no value as long as there is no trial even if they are true.
> 
> 
> We are not vigilantes, we are not here to make justice by ourselves, this whole EN thing seems to me a witch hunt and the victims should have sued him legally instead of trying to turn the internet against SPF. I talk with full knowledge of this kind of witch hunt because the situation where SPF is is well know to me, I have been targeted by this kind of attacks (at a lower scale) and I have lost friends in the course of it. Still nobody has sued me or brought proof I am what they said at this time. Still, I am the loser because now in France, I have difficulties making new friends or finding players.
> 
> I also talked to two friends of him (Jodi Black and Len Pimentel) and I have made my decision. Il will support Sean because justice is not on the internet to make but on the legal system.


----------



## Charrua13

Sean, mY last one...which is just going through statements posted AFTER your most recent post.  It doesn't include all the other horrid things that people said before it (Which I may be inclined, moderator permitted, to go back and choice pick for everyone's edification).

This one has been going on an on about legalese that has been counterpointed time and time again, but believes that he has an important thing to say about law, and how it affects the ways in which men treat women.  

Come collect him too. 



prosfilaes said:


> Yes, the standards are more relaxed. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "evidentiary standard", but I don't see an alternative. If you want or need to know whether something is true, there's not really another choice besides applying the evidence available to you. If someone makes a serious claim, it should be backed up somehow. Life, to some extent, gives most people the tools to deal with evidence; as people mention with the babysitter and other examples above, that's what wise people do, take the evidence available to them, weigh it and act on it as the weight of the evidence and seriousness of the matter demand.
> 
> The same argument against arguing based on evidence could apply to the jury room; 12 average people, and no neutral arbiter in the room as to what can be considered. I see no problem asking people outside the jury room to think about evidence, to sift good evidence from bad and use that to come to a decision; that's simply good life practice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

lowkey13 said:


> I always wonder if people see the trolls, and think, “Wait, I’m on the same side as them? Perhaps I should re-evaluate the decisions that have led me to this place.”
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hn1VxaMEjRU]https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU[/video]




I once designed a campaign in which the PCs are part of a force that they have to figure out is actually in the service of the BBEG.  Never got to run it, though.


----------



## kenmarable

Rygar said:


> The problem there is that beyond some relative simple and common rules, harassment policies generally end up being trivial to exploit for gain or a legal liability.
> 
> Since a lot of harassment uses a very loose definition of the term which gives advantage to the accuser, widespread implementation of these policies can and will end up being tools.  Want to win the Magic/Pokémon/Board Game tournament?  Have friends watch the competition and then accuse your greatest threat(s) of harassment.  People cheat at these events *constantly*, this is a better tool than any other they can use today.
> 
> In a similar vein, these venues will risk being targets for lawsuits with today's loose definitions being used.  What is termed harassment by many people on the internet is very different than what the law considers to be harassment.  The Honey Badgers lawsuit is a good example.  I doubt most conventions can survive more than two or three of these events.




Sorry, I’m not going to take fanciful hypotheticals with no actual history over actual, existing, well documented harm that has occurred for decades and has occurred to thousands of women in our hobby and driven many away from it. There is zero comparison. Besides, even if this imaginary world where false harassment claims are used to try and win at Pokemon, I would still absolutely weigh that harassment and abuse of women as orders of magnitude worse than not being able to compete at Pokemon. One harm is massively worse than the other, if it even exists. (Again, some due dillegence goes a long way as real false accusations tend to fall apart quickly as with the Washington Post example.)

(Also the Honey Badger lawsuit *is* a good example. Even with tens of thousands of dollars crowdfunded to support the lawsuit against them, both The Mary Sue and Calgary Expo seem to be doing just fine.)

I can imagine bizarro scenarios where any rule, policy, or law could be harmful. That doesn’t mean we should throw them out. The steps I listed above have already been used by many cons for years and actually work to prevent real, non-imagined harm and haven’t yet led to the fanciful hypotheticals you raise. They work.


----------



## Garthanos

Elfcrusher said:


> Evidence, not proof.
> 
> (Scientist, not Lawyer.)
> 
> EDIT: Looks like somebody already pointed that out.




It's also considered the worst of evidence in both courts and in science.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I once designed a campaign in which the PCs are part of a force that they have to figure out is actually in the service of the BBEG.  Never got to run it, though.




That is a freakin' awesome idea.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Garthanos said:


> It's also considered the worst of evidence in both courts and in science.




Thanks for broadcasting where you stand on this question.  It helps for list-making.


----------



## Catulle

Garthanos said:


> It's also considered the worst of evidence in both courts and in science.




Given your stated (and historically searchable by clicking on your profile) disinterest in the value of direct complaints of harassment (because I don't know, women lie or somesuch rubbish), is there anything that might satisfy you? Or are you going to continue sneering without substance?


----------



## TheSwartz

And, this is why I almost never check ENworld anymore...


----------



## Guest 6801328

Catulle said:


> Given your stated (and historically searchable by clicking on your profile) disinterest in the value of direct complaints of harassment (because I don't know, women lie or somesuch rubbish), is there anything that might satisfy you? Or are you going to continue sneering without substance?




Perhaps the answer is "video and DNA sample or it didn't happen...and even then, you never know.  Those lyin' vixen are sneaky."


----------



## Catulle

Elfcrusher said:


> Perhaps the answer is "video and DNA sample or it didn't happen...and even then, you never know.  Those lyin' vixen are sneaky."




I'd like to, you know, at least hear that direct and unfiltered from the source.

Earlier on, it was kind of weird and exciting to be accused of not knowing adult safeguarding, but I think that dude's gone by now.


----------



## Sunseeker

Eltab said:


> Where did you get _the second half_ of that from?
> 
> Fair enough; creeps falsely claim to be Gentlemen so they can target a victim.
> 
> A Gentleman's behavior demonstrates these character qualities:
> - Loyalty
> - Servant-Leadership
> - Kindness
> - Humility
> - Purity
> - Honesty
> - Self-Discipline
> - Excellence
> - Integrity
> - Perseverance
> 
> I'm pulling this from the book "Raising a Modern-Day Knight", and will recommend it, rather than post a wall of text trying to summarize it.




Be aware that classically speaking, being a "Lady" typically means things like:
Don't speak when not spoken to.
Don't travel outside without an escrot.
Don't speak to men who aren't your husband/father/brother.
Even in historical Europe, being a "lady" is not far off from being a woman in a place like Saudi Arabia.  Short of the full burka, even clothing standards were not far off (in Europe it was the hands).  

Being a "Lady" historically was less about being a well-rounded, intelligent, thoughtful person, but had more to do with being silent, subservient and pregnant.

I'm not saying you're promoting this, but I'm saying you may not understand the traditional gendered differences between "Ladies" and "Gentlemen".


----------



## Sean Patrick Fannon

"Never say never." I intend for this to be my last post on this thread (and, frankly, on EN World) for the foreseeable future. It is entirely possibly _something_ will pop up that requires me to dive back in, but I honestly don't believe anything else I have to say in the meantime is going to be any more helpful. I have to spend some time with myself and my family and figure out what is my next best step forward.

However, it has been repeatedly mentioned that I need to "collect my friends." 

This phrase confuses me. It apparently indicates that those who seek their way out of a fire (like this one) must convince others that we are sincere enough to throw down against folks are are supposedly on "our side" (but in truth are pushing their own agendas, and dragging us down with their sinking ships). 

Those, however, are not the actions of *friends.*

They are the actions of opportunists and folks bitter about the world that's coming.

*Please stop talking about libel.* Yes, libel, defamation of character, and other such things are genuinely bad, but they are not relevant to this conversation. The thing I most wanted from all this is actually happening - a discussion about how to change the nature of our culture, to awaken those who think of things in outdated ways or who simply refuse to understand that what they think is acceptable behavior simply isn't. You are derailing that discourse with continuing to insist on that the focus should be about that.

You aren't helping. Please stop. I've done enough damage. No more, please.

Same for anyone discussing "witch hunts" (a problematic phrase in its own right) and the rest. Again, not where this discourse needs to be. I know what happened, I know who I am, and I know where we need to be. *Please* let's focus on that *last part*, which is the only meaningful place this conversation needs to go now.

If you are envisioning this discourse as your chance to talk about how women can hurt men, *please shut the hell up!* 

Seriously, not good, not helpful, and really gross. You need to unpack that someplace else. Don't do it in the name of what this is. 

Honestly, regardless of the specifics (and the truths therein), the general situation remains that I and guys like me have needed to work on how we act for a long time, and that's what this needs to be about. It also needs to be about how the community works to make the spaces we gather in better for all.

Full stop.


----------



## prosfilaes

Charrua13 said:


> This one has been going on an on about legalese that has been counterpointed time and time again, but believes that he has an important thing to say about law, and how it affects the ways in which men treat women.
> 
> Come collect him too.




Oh, please. Now anyone discussing the philosophical questions underpining the discussion is against you and should attacked instead of responded to? I wasn't even talking about law; I was talking about evidence, and how we use it to build a conclusion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Elfcrusher said:


> Thanks for broadcasting where you stand on this question.  It helps for list-making.




Thing is, Garanthos isn’t far off.  It isn’t technically “the worst”, but recent studies indicate that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as once thought.  Even victims get it wrong sometimes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/


----------



## Advilaar

kenmarable said:


> What can they do? An awful lot. Having clearly stated harassment policies is a good start, but certainly not the end of it.
> 
> Here is a good overview but in general:
> 
> 1. Have a very clear harassment policy that not only says harassment will not be tolerated, but makes it clear how to report it, what the convention will do when it is reported, and what potential consequences will be.
> 
> (Side note: For one thing, they need to absolutely NOT be something like the S.T.O.P. policy that Green Ronin pushed recently that would require a victim to personally confront their harasser/abuser before the convention had to do anything. Among other issues it had, that is a fine example of a *bad* policy.)
> 
> 2. Make the policy clearly visible as much as possible (on the website, in the program book, posted throughout the convention)
> 
> 3. Train staff on how to handle harassment situations. This includes both "on the floor" staff on what to do when someone comes to them with a report, as well as for those in charge in how to properly research and respond to a report. (There are many experts in this and plenty of resources on the internet. If you are running a con, you need to be responsible enough to educate yourself on how to handle this stuff.)
> 
> 4. Have clearly identified staff that victims can easily find and report to (who, as per #3, already know what to do and don't "need to go find someone" or something)
> 
> 5. Take reports seriously. (Seems obvious, but this is where many, many conventions have failed in the past.)
> 
> 6. Be decisive in response, even if the staff knows the person, even if they think he's actually a nice guy, even if they are a VIP. This can include removal from the convention and even police reports and/or permanent banning in very serious situations.
> 
> And that's just the basics, at that link above, as well as many, many resources out there, it goes into a lot of detail on what conventions can and should do. They aren't babysitters, but they are responsible for basic security at their gathering. If they cannot handle the responsibility of the above items, then they should not be running a convention.
> 
> But also to address a couple specific questions:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone reports after the fact, it should absolutely 100% be taken as seriously as a report during a convention. It's a bit easier since there's not a potential of an immediate threat, but it is still serious. Considering the sensitive nature of these issues and how overwhelmingly poorly conventions (and society) have traditionally handled these issues since pretty much forever, basically telling a victim "You should have told us before, now we won't take you seriously" is absurd and wrong.
> 
> Secondly, a convention may not be responsible for what happens in a room party or in someone's hotel room (in the sense of being able to blame them), but they are absolutely 100% responsible for how they respond afterwards.
> 
> (And to reiterate from above - VIPs need to be held to the same standard. Yes, some have failed to do that, but others are quite willing to. And even if some conventions haven't held VIPs to the same standard, they are wrong and need to change their policy or attendees need to refuse to go there anymore.)




All these are great. This Fannon guy did do some creepy stuff.

Only thing I disagree with is some of the Green Ronnin stuff and the TL;DR of the feminist wiki stuff.

As far as the Green Ronin example, it would be really nice if someone was going to get you banned, you should at least know where it is coming from. The mere accusation of this can lay a giant nuke on someone's livelihood. Though, I admit, if someone is a rich, powerful figure that does this as a woman you would definitely NOT want this. Particularly if you had a career you were trying to do whether this is a YouTube channel, game you are developing, or modeling career.

As far as the feminist wiki stuff, I found some of it to be very overbearing and the folks that would need to read that would not. I mean, how many ways can you define DON'T BE A JERK in all caps? Did Fannon read the rules? No. He was a respected panelist. 

Then there are all these people, feminist and MRA both, that are scary as hell. These people show up with thousands, find out where you live, give death threats to your family, and will not be happy if you disagree with them on any one point.

That's the reason you have trolls on this when there needs to be a discussion.


----------



## Garthanos

thom_enworld said:


> Hmm... would you want to be a bit more specific?



i was agreeing with you - though I can see how that would be difficult to read - I am now just absorbing how nasty even some on this thread (especially early on - I read back now) have been.

 and btw the really poor rates of prosecution seems like it is evidence of a failure in our criminal system. We may be over wired to protect the accused.

An actual court of law accusation carries potential penalties for perjury but there is none in the court of public opinion. This latter is potentially the only reason to be less convinced by things which are not actually being taken to court.


----------



## Garthanos

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thing is, Garanthos isn’t far off.  It isn’t technically “the worst”, but recent studies indicate that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as once thought.  Even victims get it wrong sometimes.
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
> https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
> https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/




Its always been pretty bad and influenced heavily by bias... however given the repercussions of at least intentional false accusation it definitely has to be taken very seriously in a legal context. 

Our legal system is either allowing a lot of poor evidence crimes go to trial or the system may be way too protective of the accused.

None of this is specific to any particular crime by the way.


----------



## Garthanos

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is why people who are insisting on trial-level verification and veracity tests- as well as an utterly ridiculous “trial first before reporting” standard- are essentially asking for the highly improbable, if not outright impossible.





I would have went with utterly impossible but exactly


----------



## Garthanos

shidaku said:


> Being a "Lady" historically was less about being a well-rounded, intelligent, thoughtful person, but had more to do with being silent, subservient and pregnant.




Yes it was a big crock and there was serious amounts of this role enforcement being made by way of religious texts... written by men ofcourse.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thing is, Garanthos isn’t far off.  It isn’t technically “the worst”, but recent studies indicate that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as once thought.  Even victims get it wrong sometimes.
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
> https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
> https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/




Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that.  But given the tenor of this thread, what's the point of describing victim testimony as the "worst" kind of evidence?


----------



## Garthanos

> video and DNA sample or it didn't happen...and even then, you never know. Those lyin' vixen are sneaky.




Did someone actually say that garbage?


----------



## Guest 6801328

A question for those (if there are any still left participating in this thread) who argue that you shouldn't go around reporting these stories because the only "evidence" is a story told by somebody who may be lying:

Do you have a similar reaction when you read news about adults suddenly, years later, reporting that they were molested by priests, coaches, or teachers?  Do you think, "That should be proven in a court of law before anybody reports on that?"  Or, "That guy might have a grudge and he's making up the story?"  Or, "You can't go around destroying people's lives with mere allegations."  Or, "That's not journalism?"  (Or even, "Well WTF do you expect if you go on a class trip and your teacher invites you into his hotel room?")

Or do you believe the stories?  

If it's different, why?


----------



## Garthanos

Elfcrusher said:


> But given the tenor of this thread



Jumps in near the end and gets knives thrown at self... apparently. 

In the science context it very much is the worst... 

The placebo effect turns out (based on recent meta studies) is almost entirely false reporting when subjective results are removed there is no such thing as "placebo" 

In science human witnessing ie the human bias is very very specifically removed by Double Blind studies we are poor evidence.

Being technical I guess. (the person responded to was being technical)


----------



## Guest 6801328

Garthanos said:


> Jumps in near the end and gets knives thrown... apparently
> 
> In the science context it very much is the worst...
> 
> The placebo effect turns out is almost entirely false reporting when subjective results are removed there is no such thing as "placebo"
> 
> In science human witnessing ie subjective is very very specifically removed by Double Blind studies we are poor evidence.




Yeah, sure, I'm not arguing with that.  

I was correcting the use of the word 'proof' to be 'evidence', because I think it's important to be precise, to avoid giving the other side grounds for dismissing your arguments.  

Given the topic and the strong opinions in this thread, I was interpreting your additional commentary to mean that it's especially bad evidence, and should be discounted. Yes, we should be skeptical of the ability of a test subject to judge whether a pill had an effect, or the ability of witness to pick an assailant (possibly of a different ethnicity, a task most people struggle with) out of a lineup, or the ability of a victim to remember (or even consistently remember) details.

But that's all very different from accusing a victim of simply making up a story.  

So...again in the context of this thread...I interpreted your comment to mean "witness testimony is always suspect, so we should take the stories of these women with a big grain of salt".  That's a leap from the fallibility of human memory to an accusation of lying.

If I got that wrong, if you were just geeking out on the word "evidence" because, well, that's what we do on forums like this, then I apologize.


----------



## Garthanos

Elfcrusher said:


> If I got that wrong, if you were just geeking out on the word "evidence" because, well, that's what we do on forums like this, then I apologize.




Color me a geek...

Occurs to me, that I very likely respond to things which bother me by Geeking out more.


----------



## Garthanos

I think the law system itself may be more than a tad overly oriented to protect the accused at the expense of the victim... 

The above is raw opinion based on the stats of "all" crimes the "evidence" I have for it is pure correlation.  -- see more geeking out.

It also occurs to me that the reason legal systems and other systems for evidence may be brought up is because we can at least track actual stats within those contexts. (even if those stats are themselves subject to lots of conjecture)


----------



## DnDMom

[MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION] Attractiveness does not entitle you to sexually harass women, you Neanderthal.


----------



## Garthanos

DnDMom said:


> Attractiveness does not entitle you to sexually harass women, you Neanderthal.




Paraxas reference I assume... I just back tracked this thread myself.

edith you pointed (I am rather hoping that one is at minimum thread banned)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Garthanos said:


> I think the law system itself may be more than a tad overly oriented to protect the accused at the expense of the victim...
> 
> The above is raw opinion based on the stats of "all" crimes the "evidence" I have for it is pure correlation.  -- see more geeking out.




Not the thread for it, and totally not any kind of comment on the thread topic, but...

Yes, the system is adversarial towards the government.  The sheer, horrifying power of the government has to be counterpointed.  A 20-something Assistant US Attorney has the power to ruin lives with almost no effort and faces *zero *repercussions for being wrong and often no repercussions for illegal abuse of position.  That kind of power is _staggering_.  The ONLY defense against it is the thin line of rights and the underlying adversarial nature of the criminal justice system.  

This goes hand in hand with the common sense admonition to _not talk to the police without a lawyer_.  The simplest reduction of this principle is pointing out that the job of police isn't to find you innocent, but instead to find someone who is guilty.  And they have a huge amount of leeway to go about that.  

If you really ever want some nightmares, look into qualified immunity cases.

Again, the above is commentary on the criminal justice system and has NO intended corollaries to the subject at hand or how non-criminal harassment in the private sector should be or is handled.  There's no where near the power differential outside of the criminal justice system that would require the levels of evidence or legal rights afforded to accused within it, and it's a mistake to draw parallels.  In the criminal justice system the power of the state is massive compared to the power of the accused, and so those rules/rights are in place to offset that differential.  This is not the case in harassment in private-venues (like cons) where, if anything, the power differential is in favor of the harasser.  Some care to not swing the pendulum too far in the other direction is warranted, but, good grief, anti-harassment policies and getting kicked out of a con, while it can suck, aren't exactly horrible outcomes worthy of high level protections.  I am generally concerned about the social-media shame parties, merely because it encourages some really vile behavior on both sides (threats and especially death threats are not warranted, ever).


----------



## Garthanos

Ovinomancer said:


> Not the thread for it, and totally not any kind of comment on the thread topic, but...




I have figured that out.


----------



## Garthanos

Ovinomancer said:


> Some care to not swing the pendulum too far in the other direction is warranted, but, good grief, anti-harassment policies and getting kicked out of a con, while it can suck, aren't exactly horrible outcomes worthy of high level protections.




And in a court the repercussion for false accusation is potentially pretty great too ... so arguably lower certainty is both to be had as well as lower certainty needed for the same reasons. 



Ovinomancer said:


> I am generally concerned about the social-media shame parties, merely because it encourages some really vile behavior on both sides (threats and especially death threats are not warranted, ever).




Few repercussions... compounded often by anonymity.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

I've no desire to support Pinnacle or Savage Rifts (and I LIKE Rifts a lot) while Fannon remains involved.


----------



## Hussar

Rygar said:


> The problem there is that beyond some relative simple and common rules, harassment policies generally end up being trivial to exploit for gain or a legal liability.
> 
> Since a lot of harassment uses a very loose definition of the term which gives advantage to the accuser, widespread implementation of these policies can and will end up being tools.  Want to win the Magic/Pokémon/Board Game tournament?  Have friends watch the competition and then accuse your greatest threat(s) of harassment.  People cheat at these events *constantly*, this is a better tool than any other they can use today.
> 
> In a similar vein, these venues will risk being targets for lawsuits with today's loose definitions being used.  What is termed harassment by many people on the internet is very different than what the law considers to be harassment.  The Honey Badgers lawsuit is a good example.  I doubt most conventions can survive more than two or three of these events.




Are you kidding?  We shouldn't implement stronger harassment policies because you're afraid that women at Magic tournaments will abuse the rules in order to win tournaments?  Seriously?  THIS is your hill to die on?

I'm sorry, but, are your friends willing to perjure themselves, expose themselves to the public scrutiny and attacks that nearly always come with any accusation, and risk potential jail time so you can win a Magic tournament?  Wow, those are some freakingly great friends.  How, exactly, does one begin that conversation?  "Excuse me, friend, but, I'd like you and a couple of more friends, to attend this event for the express purpose of committing a crime so I can win."

Gimme a break.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know,  [MENTION=26553]Sean Patrick Fannon[/MENTION] has shown himself to be pretty stand up here.  Well done you sir.  I hope that things are better in the future.


----------



## Charrua13

prosfilaes said:


> Oh, please. Now anyone discussing the philosophical questions underpining the discussion is against you and should attacked instead of responded to? I wasn't even talking about law; I was talking about evidence, and how we use it to build a conclusion.




You're right, because the philosophical discussion about whether or not there needs to be some standard of evidence in order to believe the stories of women who's agency is being disrespected is SO much better than having a legal discussion about it.

Because without evidence to the contrary, women actually aren't being disrespected or harassed...it's all in their heads. 

Because without evidence to the contrary, men are just being nice.

Because without evidence to the contrary, women are just being spiteful, engaging in character assassination, or some other personal vendetta against a man/men because they're wildly irrational creatures that want to see men suffer.

You're right. It's a woman's problem. That line of conversation IS so much better.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> Are you kidding?  We shouldn't implement stronger harassment policies because you're afraid that women at Magic tournaments will abuse the rules in order to win tournaments?  Seriously?  THIS is your hill to die on?
> 
> I'm sorry, but, are your friends willing to perjure themselves, expose themselves to the public scrutiny and attacks that nearly always come with any accusation, and risk potential jail time so you can win a Magic tournament?  Wow, those are some freakingly great friends.  How, exactly, does one begin that conversation?  "Excuse me, friend, but, I'd like you and a couple of more friends, to attend this event for the express purpose of committing a crime so I can win."
> 
> Gimme a break.



1.  The allegation that harassment rules are being abused as the scene proposes is ridiculous in the absence of evidence.  So we agree here.

2.  However, the scheme alleged didn't involve the criminal justice system, so there's no going to jail for anyone and no perjury for false statements.  The risk for false allegations is social, not criminal.  I suppose there's a tort risk, but likely not.

3.  2 above should not be read as a statement supporting the likelihood of false accusations.  It's only a clarification that criminal risk isn't involved in the scheme proposed, not that the scheme should be given any additional weight therefore.

4. TL;DR:  you're right that the Magic cheating scheme by way of false accusations of harassment is ridiculous, but not because of the risk of criminal prosecution.


----------



## Hussar

Considering that MtG tournaments can run some serious prize money, you better believe that criminal charges will get involved in a hurry.  Conspiracy charges for one.  Because, well, it's not like it's going to be that hard to find out that all three women are friends of the person who's running the scam.

So, yes, there is some fairly significant risks of criminal repercussions for trying to run a scam like this.  

In any case, can we at least agree that it's a blood ridiculous thing to worry about?  This garbage gets brought up repeatedly whenever harassment issues come up.  It's mind bogglingly stupid.


----------



## Jeanneliza

It is kind of nice to see this discussion has continued for over 4 days now and the thread still hasn't been shut down because of trolls trying to prevent any real discussion from happening. And though there have been more than a few absolutely cringe worthy posts, I have seen a good deal of exchange of perceptions here, and while that is a tiny, tiny step, it is at least going in the right direction. 
Nearly every culture has a variation of the proverb "until you have walked a mile in their shoes..." and the only way in RL we can do that is listen, consider, and discuss.
While most of the men here have been reasonable and open, it still discourages me there have been so few women willing to join the discussion. I can't blame them, many of them rightfully fear a repeat of past experiences should they do so, and some of the posts suggested this time would be no different. I myself hesitated for several days, for the same reasons.
But I have also lived with these issues over 60 years, I am tired, I am tired of seeing the cycle repeat over and over, and while some of the terms have changed a lot of underlying assumptions have not, and those assumptions never change if no one dare speak. (Oh by the way, yes, even women my age can be and are the targets of harassment and bullying). However I hear men asking some questions that needed to be asked, and I know they won't really find the answers until they can see it from our perspective. So I spoke. I spoke of what women live with all through society on a daily basis, and when we speak, we are assumed to be probably lying with some hidden agenda regarding a deep seated desire to hurt men, to malign ALL men.
Newsflash guys, my grandfathers were men, my dad and uncles were men, my 4 brothers, 3 son in laws, four grandsons, all men. Countless male cousins. I worked in male dominated industries 90% of my working years. Every woman I know have a good many men in their lives they love and respect. I have had a good many male teachers and mentors I admire and respect. And since joining this hobby I have met a good many male co-hobbiest that are good and decent people. So I have never been quite sure where this perception that women have, by default, some agenda to harm men, or would do so at the slightest provocation, was born.
But this false perception does REAL harm to my gender. And not just to women, to minorities, the disabled, the transgender, the genderfluid, gay persons etc. People in these groups are suffering and dying DAILY because of some skewed perception that fails to see them as simply human beings with no greater agenda than to get about their daily lives without fear of harassment, assault or death simply because of what they are.
I hear the fear of what MIGHT happen to the other extreme if something is done to address current and ongoing injustices. And yes this is a systemic problem, way to common at all levels of our society. And some have decried the discussion taking place here in what is a GAMING forum. Meantime all across society these issues ARE being confronted. The gaming community may have no larger a problem than society as a whole, but I have often heard the claim that gamers are generally a more sensitive, compassionate understanding bunch by virtue of the shared hobby. IF that is true, then you would be less afraid to challenge the issues head on, you would WANT your communities to demonstrate a HIGHER standard than the general population, would you not?
Now for days I have watched the semantics and details, rules of evidence, legal standards, presumption of innocence, and those all are valid parts of the discussion, but when the reality is buried under those discussions, that every single day we sit here arguing points of law, members of the groups I named are experiencing lingchi, the Chinese "death by a thousand cuts". With every daily injustice, large and small that is never addressed because some theoretical abuse of rules that could provide justice we die a little inside, we withdraw a little further into ourselves, we avoid this party, that concert, that gaming Con, we spend more hours policing ourselves than we do living our lives in peace. We walk around on constant guard, and then are attacked for being reserved and suspicious when an "innocent guy" tries to talk to us. 
Now there is a lot more discussion that needs to be had a lot more of taking the time to check from other perspectives. But this 60+ grandmother wants to go for a walk today and when I do I will weigh whether to take the prettier forest path that is also pretty isolated, or stay to the more open streets where if anything happens there could be more witnesses. Later this week I want to meet with the head of our local community theater, but I will weigh the timing carefully,so as to insure I won't be walking home alone after dark. I will play a few RPG's this week online with gaming friends, mostly male, on a VTT with a voice server, and I will be constantly monitoring my words, both in and out of character so I won't either offend anyone, or give someone the "wrong impression". Geez I am a grandmother why do I still need to worry abut these things?
But the discussion still needs to continue, and that it has lasted this long for me is at least an encouraging sign.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> Considering that MtG tournaments can run some serious prize money, you better believe that criminal charges will get involved in a hurry.  Conspiracy charges for one.  Because, well, it's not like it's going to be that hard to find out that all three women are friends of the person who's running the scam.
> 
> So, yes, there is some fairly significant risks of criminal repercussions for trying to run a scam like this.
> 
> In any case, can we at least agree that it's a blood ridiculous thing to worry about?  This garbage gets brought up repeatedly whenever harassment issues come up.  It's mind bogglingly stupid.



No, man.  Conspiracy isn't a charge, its conspiracy to commit [a crime].  Abusing private codes of conduct is not illegal.  That's not so say someone couldn't sue for damages, but that's not criminal.  There's plenty of real reasons to dismiss the scheme in discussing without adding things that just don't apply.


----------



## Catulle

Ovinomancer said:


> No, man.  Conspiracy isn't a charge, its conspiracy to commit [a crime].  Abusing private codes of conduct is not illegal.  That's not so say someone couldn't sue for damages, but that's not criminal.  There's plenty of real reasons to dismiss the scheme in discussing without adding things that just don't apply.




Yeah, it would be breach of contract along the lines of CoC/Ts&Cs, which honestly is the best place for this stuff to sit, breadth of organiser discretion and low, low burdens of proof being desirable factors.


----------



## Advilaar

I was talking to my SO about this last night and she brought up an excellent point that has not been brought up in the entire threadnaught.

If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him? My SO said that is what she would do when we reread the article together.

Yes, he is a big Kahuna  of some somewhat obscure third party gaming content company. Yes, it is against the policy of the con for violence.

But you know what? No one would have done anything to her. In fact a lot would have jumped on her side even if he did not and I doubt the guy would punch back...


----------



## Rygar

Hussar said:


> Considering that MtG tournaments can run some serious prize money, you better believe that criminal charges will get involved in a hurry.  Conspiracy charges for one.  Because, well, it's not like it's going to be that hard to find out that all three women are friends of the person who's running the scam.
> 
> So, yes, there is some fairly significant risks of criminal repercussions for trying to run a scam like this.
> 
> In any case, can we at least agree that it's a blood ridiculous thing to worry about?  This garbage gets brought up repeatedly whenever harassment issues come up.  It's mind bogglingly stupid.




You all need to pick a position and stick to it.  Either every accusation of harassment is true and shouldn't be held to standards requiring clear proof, and just suggesting that we require a degree of investigation is misogony and victim-blaming, or accusations can be false and we should investigate and treat claims with some degree of suspicion.  Make up your minds.

You're basically picking and choosing which accusations of harassment you want to be beyond reproach or questioning now.

By virtue of what's been stated in this thread (and others), your posts are invalid,  you're not allowed to question women making the accusation of harassment.  So there's no reprocussions to leveraging a harassment policy to gain advantages.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: this sequence:



Rygar said:


> The problem there is that beyond some relative simple and common rules, harassment policies generally end up being trivial to exploit for gain or a legal liability.
> (Edit)
> Want to win the Magic/Pokémon/Board Game tournament?  Have friends watch the competition and then accuse your greatest threat(s) of harassment.  People cheat at these events *constantly*, this is a better tool than any other they can use today.



And:


Hussar said:


> Considering that MtG tournaments can run some serious prize money, you better believe that criminal charges will get involved in a hurry. Conspiracy charges for one. Because, well, it's not like it's going to be that hard to find out that all three women are friends of the person who's running the scam.
> 
> So, yes, there is some fairly significant risks of criminal repercussions for trying to run a scam like this.






Ovinomancer said:


> Abusing private codes of conduct is not illegal.




Actually, it could be, depending on the situation.

Larceny by trick and larceny by false pretenses are both crimes, and false accusation of harassment in order to win a price could fall under the umbrella of either one.  Using South Carolina’s statutes- picked at random- Larceny by Trick or Larceny by False Pretenses are punishable by the same penalties as Grand Larceny, namely:



> If the value of goods taken is less than one thousand dollars the penalty is thirty days incarceration and/or a fine of five hundred dollars.
> 
> If the value of goods taken is between one thousand and five thousand dollars the penalty is up to five years incarceration and/or a fine in the court’s discretion.
> 
> If the value of goods taken is five thousand dollars or more the penalty is ten years incarceration and/or a fine in the court’s discretion.
> 
> For a third or subsequent offense, the defendant would be sentenced to ten years and/or a fine in the court’s discretion and additionally the motor vehicle used in the larceny may be confiscated and forfeited.




Further, any crime defined as “conspiracy to commit ________” usually carries nearly the same penalties as the crime itself, sometimes barring the harshest.

So, in this scenario, not only could an competitor in a MtG contest in South Carolina who’s lied about an opponent’s harassment be facing jail time and fines, so could each of the co-conspirators.  

Note _also_ that filing false police reports and perjury are each also separate and distinct crimes, so if the falsely accused defended himself, and the conspirators doubled down and used the allegations in a criminal complaint in order to keep the prize money, they’d each face more fines and jail time.

All of which- the mere allegation (and everything that potentially followed) to secure the prize additionally brings us back the specter of defamation, which itself has the possibility of large financial civil penalties.


----------



## Catulle

Advilaar said:


> I was talking to my SO about this last night and she brought up an excellent point that has not been brought up in the entire threadnaught.
> 
> If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him? My SO said that is what she would do when we reread the article together.
> 
> Yes, he is a big Kahuna  of some somewhat obscure third party gaming content company. Yes, it is against the policy of the con for violence.
> 
> But you know what? No one would have done anything to her. In fact a lot would have jumped on her side even if he did not and I doubt the guy would punch back...




I'd have thought the answer to the question "why did this person not immediately escalate to violence" should be pretty obvious with even a cursory understanding of human psychology and socialisation; to be clear "why didn't she just fight him off?" is a grotesque position with a storied history of placing the blame on the victim.

NB: Edited the last "on" from an "in" - apparently the back garden doesn't like me wireless internetting while BBQing!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You all need to pick a position and stick to it. Either every accusation of harassment is true and shouldn't be held to standards requiring clear proof, and just suggesting that we require a degree of investigation is misogony and victim-blaming, or accusations can be false and we should investigate and treat claims with some degree of suspicion.




You all need to stop fearing women.

Point of fact: pretty much every allegation of sexual harassment /assault that goes to law enforcement gets investigated for its possible falsity, to the point that there _are_ cases that have been subsequently proven to be true that were initially believed false and not pursued.

In some cases, the victim is even charged with false reporting, a crime with fines and possible jail time attached.


> Marie, an 18-year-old who reported being raped in Lynnwood, Wash., by a man who broke into her apartment. (Marie is her middle name.) Police detectives treated small inconsistencies in her account — common among trauma victims — as major discrepancies. Instead of interviewing her as a victim, they interrogated her as a suspect. Under pressure, Marie eventually recanted — and was charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail. The court ordered her to pay $500 in court costs, get mental health counseling for her lying and go on supervised probation for one year. More than two years later, the police in Colorado arrested a serial rapist — and discovered a photograph proving he had raped Marie.




A lengthy and detailed account of that case is found here:
https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

With more here:
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/5837...w-women-who-report-sexual-assault-are-treated



> ARMSTRONG: The thing that made them doubt her the most was that she didn't act the way they thought a rape victim should act. They expected her to be hysterical, and she wasn't. They couldn't understand her tone of voice, how she seemed to be emotionally detached.
> 
> CHANG: I think one of the mothers said it sounded like she was just saying, I'm eating a sandwich or I'm making a sandwich, right?
> 
> ARMSTRONG: That's right, utterly devoid of emotion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So there's no reprocussions to leveraging a harassment policy to gain advantages.




I think that you’ll find that in most of the proven high profile false accusation cases, the false accuser faces getting hit with pretty substantial financial penalties.  

Look at one of the most famous ones in US history: Tawana Brawley is under a judgement of hundreds of thousands of dollars, with interest.  When the truth was discovered, she didn’t really have much in the way of money...and because of the rightful stigma attached to what she did, she won’t ever because few people will hire her for anything resembling a wage that would enable her to accrue any wealth.  Her paychecks are garnished.  And the interest on the judgement keeps adding up.

She has effectively ruined her life.

Next myth please.


----------



## Advilaar

Catulle said:


> I'd have thought the answer to the question "why did this person not immediately escalate to violence" should be pretty obvious with even a cursory understanding of human psychology and socialisation; to be clear "why didn't she just fight him off?" is a grotesque position with a storied history of placing the blame in the victim.




No victim blaming intended. My SO said he would be relieved of testicles if he did it to her. Of course, she is a creature of New Orleans. You do not make those ladies mad  I laughed hysterically.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Rygar said:


> Either every accusation of harassment is true and shouldn't be held to standards requiring clear proof, and just suggesting that we require a degree of investigation is misogony and victim-blaming, or accusations can be false and we should investigate and treat claims with some degree of suspicion.




Moronic argument.  You've taken the extreme position "every claim is true" and contrasted it not with the opposite extreme position ("every claim is false") but against the entire rest of the spectrum: "every claim might be true and might be false."  You're weighing 100% certainty against 1 to 99% uncertainty.  

None of the reasonable, rationale people in this thread are claiming that 100% of all accusations are true.  

The ridiculous claim in this thread is that women's reports of harassment are more likely than other claims to be made up and therefore we should err on the side of protecting men.  Despite decades and decades of evidence of what happens when you do.


----------



## Morrus

Advilaar said:


> I was talking to my SO about this last night and she brought up an excellent point that has not been brought up in the entire threadnaught.
> 
> If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him? My SO said that is what she would do when we reread the article together.
> 
> Yes, he is a big Kahuna  of some somewhat obscure third party gaming content company. Yes, it is against the policy of the con for violence.
> 
> But you know what? No one would have done anything to her. In fact a lot would have jumped on her side even if he did not and I doubt the guy would punch back...




Requiring victims to be action heroes is a bit much.


----------



## Imaculata

Advilaar said:


> If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him? My SO said that is what she would do when we reread the article together.




So unless you fight back, you are giving consent?


----------



## Jeanneliza

Morrus said:


> Requiring victims to be action heroes is a bit much.




And more than that. Harassment that another may or may not have witnessed is a gray area, not criminal until it reaches assault levels. Assault and battery is a clear crime, and if the guy is doubled over in pain, well unlike women being believed, that is clear and convincing evidence he was the victim of assault and battery. They may claim NOW that such an action would be seen as justified as self-defense, she had better have even BETTER evidence she was justified in breaking the law to stop it. Guys may say NOW, well I would cheer her on, until it is their FRIEND doubled over in pain saying "She over reacted to simple comment man, I didn't mean anything by it." Cops called, woman arrested for assault and battery, the crime they DO have evidence of. This is how it works. I as a woman will not trust the men around me to support me if I physically assault a man.
Can't happen? Few years back in Florida, (yeah the same time the TV thing was happening) woman fired a gun into the AIR to scare off her abusive ex. She was sentenced to 20 years for reckless discharge of a firemarn, in the Stand Your Ground state. Sorry the double standard would still apply here and the woman would be doubly victimized.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Advilaar said:


> I was talking to my SO about this last night and she brought up an excellent point that has not been brought up in the entire threadnaught.
> 
> If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him? My SO said that is what she would do when we reread the article together.
> 
> Yes, he is a big Kahuna  of some somewhat obscure third party gaming content company. Yes, it is against the policy of the con for violence.
> 
> But you know what? No one would have done anything to her. In fact a lot would have jumped on her side even if he did not and I doubt the guy would punch back...




Some do.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sports-reporter-hits-man-gropes-live-air.html

It shouldn’t be a requirement, though.  It seriously complicates matters by injecting a physical assault lt into the equation, which must itself be investigated.  AND it doesn’t remove the he said/she said issue.

Worse, what if the groper is a violent drunk- or has them for friends.  Consider that Mexican reporter.  Her retaliation could have been turned into a beatdown.  Consider the banned 1%er biker dude whose posts got erased.  If he is what he claimed- an actual 1%er- do you think he’d have hesitated to punch back in that kind of situation?

And how is a woman to judge when she can safely defend herself thusly?


----------



## Advilaar

Jeanneliza said:


> And more than that. Harassment that another may or may not have witnessed is a gray area, not criminal until it reaches assault levels. Assault and battery is a clear crime, and if the guy is doubled over in pain, well unlike women being believed, that is clear and convincing evidence he was the victim of assault and battery. They may claim NOW that such an action would be seen as justified as self-defense, she had better have even BETTER evidence she was justified in breaking the law to stop it. Guys may say NOW, well I would cheer her on, until it is their FRIEND doubled over in pain saying "She over reacted to simple comment man, I didn't mean anything by it." Cops called, woman arrested for assault and battery, the crime they DO have evidence of. This is how it works. I as a woman will not trust the men around me to support me if I physically assault a man.
> Can't happen? Few years back in Florida, (yeah the same time the TV thing was happening) woman fired a gun into the AIR to scare off her abusive ex. She was sentenced to 20 years for reckless discharge of a firemarn, in the Stand Your Ground state. Sorry the double standard would still apply here and the woman would be doubly victimized.




I suppose you are right. Good point. And no, lack of fighting back IS NOT consent. Never implied that.

My SO grew up in New Orleans near the bars  of French Quarter circa 1990s. She is a very blunt, tom-boyish no nonsense lady. But, I would not want to be bailing her out of jail in some far away city..lol! Good point.


----------



## Catulle

Advilaar said:


> I laughed hysterically.




I bet you did. Sexual assault is hilarious. Ho Ho ho.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Advilaar said:


> I suppose you are right. Good point. And no, lack of fighting back IS NOT consent. Never implied that.
> 
> My SO grew up in New Orleans near the bars  of French Quarter circa 1990s. She is a very blunt, tom-boyish no nonsense lady. But, I would not want to be bailing her out of jail in some far away city..lol! Good point.




Oh it isn't just New Orleans, I grew up and have retired back to the backwoods of Michigan. I grew up with male cousins, brothers, my dad taught all of us girls to wrestle right along with out brothers. In an earlier post I commented on those lamenting the good ole days when ya didn't have to be PC. I miss those days to when a well aimed knee to the groin in self-defense, even without overwhelming evidence didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge. However these days if your defense to committing a crime was to stop another one you had damned well better be able to prove there was a crime in progress. Given the reactions of so many when it doesn't go to this level about disbelievjng the victim, well yeah.
I am only 5 foot tall, but have never backed down from bullies, a few times it might have been the smart thing to do. And yeah, some of them hit back. But over and over I hear these guys talking about their fear of what MIGHT happen, they want empathy and understanding for these nebulous fears. Meanwhile each and every day I am working with and talking to people who have faced this kind of harassment, assaults, and worse, and it is damned hard to work up empathy for those fear of what might be while they have demonstrated 0 empathy or understanding of what ALL READY is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Advilaar said:


> I suppose you are right. Good point. And no, lack of fighting back IS NOT consent. Never implied that.
> 
> My SO grew up in New Orleans near the bars  of French Quarter circa 1990s. She is a very blunt, tom-boyish no nonsense lady. But, I would not want to be bailing her out of jail in some far away city..lol! Good point.




I’m from NOLA myself.  The Quarters- especially during Marci Gras- can be a *bad* place to resort to self defense, even for guys.  

I took a buddy of mine there for the festivities @1990 or so.  Back then, I was 5’7” and 193 lbs of (mostly) muscle.  My buddy was 6’3” and beefy himself.  We were there with one of my cousins and her boyfriend at the time, himself a 6’, 220 Marine.  My buddy fell for one of the shoeshine scams, but refused to pay up.  The scammer whistled, and there were 4 of his fellow scammers approaching.

Then they realized my friend was not alone, and backed off.

This was broad daylight, and his big white male ass almost got mugged in public, in a crowd.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Advilaar said:


> If Fannon truly did this in a public place, how come she did not just punch the hell out of him?... I doubt the guy would punch back...



SPF is over six feet tall and heavily built but sure, why not take a chance? What's the worst that could happen?

I should also add that I'm not happy with this question. We shouldn't be interrogating victims and asking "Why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that? If it had happened to me I'd have punched out the bad guy", as if they're the ones that did something wrong.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Advilaar said:


> No victim blaming intended. My SO said he would be relieved of testicles if he did it to her. Of course, she is a creature of New Orleans. You do not make those ladies mad  I laughed hysterically.





Don't be a ~please don’t trigger the profanity filter, and remember to keep it civil, per ENWorld’s rules..  Google "sexual assault New Orleans" and maybe you'll stop laughing hysterically.  New Orleans women are no more badass than women anywhere else.  

The problem is not that women don't fight back, the problem is that the stupidest people in America _think_ that's the problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Doug McCrae said:


> SPF is over six feet tall and heavily built but sure, why not take a chance? What's the worst that could happen?



Thank you for posting that.

I did a cursory search: Mary Brandon’s groper/assaulter has- apparently- never been caught in the intervening 4 years, despite the UK’s nearly ubiquitous use of CCTV systems, including those at the festival.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.

I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in *good company* having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale - and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the *ACLU *and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.

From what I can decipher of what he's said, this seems roughly analogous to the accusations made against *Lawrence Krauss*, which read as socially awkward misunderstandings and cringeworthy obliviousness. Social awkwardness and people on the spectrum may be something both the skeptic community and the gaming community have in common, which could account for the bacchanal atmosphere some 'Nerd Proms' descend into.

Even though I've got a good reason to personally dislike him on that basis, I'm just not prepared to throw him under the bus any more than I would anyone else. There are accusations, but that doesn't make them facts. As others have pointed out we have a legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Others have suggested that this is somehow a bad principle or limited to a purely legal context. That isn't the case, it's a basic logical principle - the burden of proof - which is why it's utilised in legal cases as well as science, and why it's a good general rule for life. Sure, personal bias and relationships can get in the way, but that's precisely why we have processes in both these spheres to encourage objectivity.

We are, however, operating in the social sphere and it seems unlikely that any legal action will result from this. So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened. Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored. This hardly seems fair or just, though one can certainly appreciate why it would worry people for accusers to be identified. Ideally, this would be handled by the courts and both accuser and accused would remain anonymous until such time as a judgement was rendered.

The world is less than ideal though and we must make do.

Part of that 'making do' should be extending the benefit of the doubt. Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all. Surely we can agree that this isn't a good way to proceed? To - metaphorically - lynch someone, purely because an accusation is made? That can lead to *some very dark places*.

By all means take precautions, investigate further, but don't lose sight of the principle of justice and fairness in the pursuit of social 'justice'.

Contrary to what some likely think, I'm all for social justice in terms of treating people equally and fairly. Ironically it's these left/lib values that are the very things that have lead me to oppose the ideologically drive 'regressive left' which seems to be in full voice throughout this thread. That doesn't mean I'm on the side of the populist right, the Jordan Petersons and their ilk either, certainly not on the side of them 'they're all lying' kind of people in this thread.

That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial - both instances in Canada. I'm most aware of issues in Canada thanks to Diana Davison's work with *The Lighthouse Project*. The fact of the matter is that we really have no idea how many accusations are false. Estimates vary horrendously and while people rightly decry how few sexual misconduct or rape cases are prosecuted, the same is true - perhaps even more so - for false accusations. They're hard to prosecute for many of the same reasons that sex crimes are hard to prosecute, with additional political issues not unlike the ones that have caused problems with prosecuting grooming gangs in the UK.

It's anywhere from that tiny percentage we're aware of, up to the full number of claims that are never prosecuted. Neither extreme is likely, but anecdotally police officers and investigators state that it's higher than we might think. Still that's colloquial and we shouldn't put too much weight on that either.

It's a conundrum. How do we address the clear issues that there are in prosecuting these cases while still providing due process and consideration for the accused? That's a problem more for the courts than us, but not prosecuting witchhunts also seems like a no-brainer. 'Trust but verify' rather than 'Listen and believe' as we used to say in GG. Speaking of which, it was brought up in the context of supposedly being a hate movement, which it was not and actual evidence exists contrary to that belief. That just goes to show that even evidence won't convince some people.

Some people want to address it by lowering the standard of evidence, but the advent of genetic forensics has cleared a lot of people who were convicted on the basis of testimony and accusations. Lowering the standard of evidence doesn't seem like a good idea and that does mean that guilty people are going to go free. Blackstone's Formulation remains a useful ethical guide and it was rather horrifying to see people in this thread decrying it and being willing to see innocent people jailed, or worse.

Others, even more horrifyingly, have tried to get things shifted to an *inquisitorial system* of justice in sexual cases. Why this is a terrible idea should be clear to anyone.

So there doesn't appear to be any good solutions to that problem, but that's one for the legal systems and the courts. I would suggest that we - as individuals - give the benefit of the doubt and try to take some of the heat out of this febrile atmosphere, but I don't see that kind of logic going over too well with many people. In fact, it - and much of this post most likely - will be taken as something that it isn't. A protection of abusers, or an attack on the (allegedly) abused. That's how bad things have gotten. Not to mention that often the people you have to defend the rights of, are unpleasant. They might be creepy, they might be fascists, they might be paedophiles, but even genuinely, provenly repugnant people still have human rights.

As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'. This doesn't mean I'm pro-harassment, and I have had to intercede myself at events in the past. I am, however, concerned about these policies as many of them seem to be ideologically driven and to 'Trojan Horse' agendas and censorship. I've attended more than one convention which, if the policy were strictly enforced, would have had no sales room and no games. Many of these policies derive from the pattern on the Geek Feminism Wiki, and this has caused *problems elsewhere*, let alone gaming cons. I am very pleased to see that Dragonmeet has walked back their version some since the last one I attended. Still, they seem completely unnecessary and very open for abuse. All it takes is one person to be a jerk and either the con staff will be outed as hypocrites, or things will go horribly wrong.

Between the law and looking out for each other, I think we have all the tools we need. Having anti-harassment policies seems pointless and, I hate to say it since the term gets abused, but it seems like 'virtue signalling'. I mean, they're even *measuring skirts* at PAX now. It's like we've gone back in time 70 years, not forward, and yet it's being driven by people who call themselves 'progressive'. It's all rather confusing to a grumpy old leftie libertine.

Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.

To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.


These are serious issues, which I take seriously.
Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.
Accusations should be taken seriously.
I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.
Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.
People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.
These things are business for the courts.
Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.

Hopefully people will address the points.


----------



## Catulle

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thank you for posting that.
> 
> I did a cursory search: Mary Brandon’s groper/assaulter has- apparently- never been caught in the intervening 4 years, despite the UK’s nearly ubiquitous use of CCTV systems, including those at the festival.




I'm not sure I'd use "nearly ubiquitous" - perhaps in (certain areas of) London and the motorways, but really not so much in the provinces.


----------



## Guest 6801328

For those who like to talk tough about "fighting back", here's a sobering story:



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> At one gathering, in a school cafeteria, a Sacramento sheriff’s detective named Carol Daly gave a brief tutorial about defending oneself against the attacker. But before the few hundred audience members dispersed into the California night, a man questioned how anyone could possibly get away with raping a woman in the presence of her husband, who would do everything in his power to prevent an assault.
> 
> A few months later, the East Area Rapist targeted that very man and his wife, in one of the more brutal attacks of the dozens he had committed.


----------



## Eltab

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I once designed a campaign in which the PCs are part of a force that they have to figure out is actually in the service of the BBEG.  Never got to run it, though.




The scene in _Project Valkyrie_ (Tom Cruise movie) where the commander of the Berlin Police realizes "WE are the rebels they mean!" has sounded like a neat plot-twist to drop on a group, but I'm not devious enough - as plot writer or DM - to carry through the first 2/3 of the campaign to make it work.


----------



## Catulle

GRIMJIM said:


> By all means take precautions, investigate further, but don't lose sight of the principle of justice and fairness in the pursuit of social 'justice'




There's a reason why my (latter-day, well after we did the CamUK thing) social work lecturers delivered a "Social Justice _and Inclusion_" module, after all.

I think applying the lens of criminality isn't useful (if nothing else it invites the limitlessly stupid criminal justice comparisons) - these policies aren't or shouldn't be about looking to punish the guilty (which is a matter for the above) - rather it's about risk management and harm reduction to one's guests and invites a rather different approach.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Catulle said:


> There's a reason why my (latter-day, well after we did the CamUK thing) social work lecturers delivered a "Social Justice [i[and Inclusion[/i]" module, after all.
> 
> I think applying the lens of criminality isn't useful (if nothing else it invites the limitlessly stupid criminal justice comparisons) - these policies aren't or shouldn't be about looking to punish the guilty (which is a matter for the above) - rather it's about risk management and harm reduction to one's guests and invites a rather different approach.




The accused are also your guests.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Catulle said:


> I'm not sure I'd use "nearly ubiquitous" - perhaps in (certain areas of) London and the motorways, but really not so much in the provinces.




Fair point.


----------



## Catulle

GRIMJIM said:


> The accused are also your guests.




Precisely; balance of rights stuff, risk assessment and all that jazz. You get that, though - you've run events and controlled access to them yourself.


----------



## Afrodyte

Now I know that if I'm harassed at a con or other fandom event held by EN World, I'll never be believed if I ever step forward. So, thanks for the heads up, I guess.

Also, while we're on the subject, I'd like pictures of all the dudes speaking in Fannon's defense so I'll know to never allow myself to be within five feet of any of them. Y'know, just in case, so it's clear I did my due diligence and didn't ask for it, especially since I'd most likely be attending without a male chaperone.

Edit: Know what? I'll just stay at home. Easier and safer that way.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Catulle said:


> Precisely; balance of rights stuff, risk assessment and all that jazz. You get that, though - you've run events and controlled access to them yourself.




If someone was said to be a problem we'd have someone keep an eye on them rather than barring them. I'd hate to be running events in this current atmosphere though.

It's endlessly disappointing to see a community that has been the target of so many moral panics succumb to one.


----------



## Morrus

Afrodyte said:


> Now I know that if I'm harassed at a con or other fandom event held by EN World, I'll never be believed if I ever step forward. So, thanks for the heads up, I guess.




Eh? I published the article. What leads you to believe I would not believe you if you said you were harassed at an event I hosted? I was rather hoping I was giving the exact opposite impression.

For the record, you would be believed.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Afrodyte said:


> Now I know that if I'm harassed at a con or other fandom event held by EN World, I'll never be believed if I ever step forward. So, thanks for the heads up, I guess.
> 
> Also, while we're on the subject, I'd like pictures of all the dudes speaking in Fannon's defense so I'll know to never allow myself to be within five feet of any of them. Y'know, just in case, so it's clear I did my due diligence and didn't ask for it, especially since I'd most likely be attending without a male chaperone.
> 
> Edit: Know what? I'll just stay at home. Easier and safer that way.




I don't think I've seen much defence, just calls for evidence before passing judgement.
It's probably a good idea to 'keep the receipts'. Most of us have a full AV suite in our pockets now after all.
It's probably _not_ a good idea to broad-swathe implicitly accuse people in this way though.


----------



## Afrodyte

GRIMJIM said:


> I don't think I've seen much defence, just calls for evidence before passing judgement.
> It's probably a good idea to 'keep the receipts'. Most of us have a full AV suite in our pockets now after all.
> It's probably _not_ a good idea to broad-swathe implicitly accuse people in this way though.




Yes, yes, sure. I would still like the photos, though. Just in case.


----------



## Afrodyte

Morrus said:


> Eh? I published the article. What leads you to believe I would not believe you if you said you were harassed at an event I hosted? I was rather hoping I was giving the exact opposite impression.
> 
> For the record, you would be believed.




I'm sure _you_ would believe me, but the entire direction of this thread indicates that anyone who harassed me would have a far more vigorous defense from the members of this community.


----------



## Morrus

Afrodyte said:


> I'm sure _you_ would believe me, but the entire direction of this thread indicates that anyone who harassed me would have a far more vigorous defense from the members of this community.




A lot of those people are from elsewhere and have joined just to comment on this thread. They aren’t representative of this community, I promise. The community is awesome (with a handful of exceptions!) and I promise any event I hosted would have a strong anti-harassment policy.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Afrodyte said:


> I'm sure _you_ would believe me, but the entire direction of this thread indicates that anyone who harassed me would have a far more vigorous defense from the members of this community.




If you were accused of something, wouldn't you want there to be a degree of scepticism and a requirement for something backing it up?

Empathy is a two-way street here I think.


----------



## Catulle

GRIMJIM said:


> If someone was said to be a problem we'd have someone keep an eye on them rather than barring them. I'd hate to be running events in this current atmosphere though.
> 
> It's endlessly disappointing to see a community that has been the target of so many moral panics succumb to one.




That's likely at the crux of the issue, Grim. I mean, I'm keeping an eye on _you_ throughout - declaration time; I'm married to somebody you directly harassed back in the day, and I'm close to somebody else impacted by your social media following. I'll wear those biases and I mention them so it's clear if/when I diverge into addressing you rather than your arguments.

I'll address LARP since that, rather than conventions, is where I suspect we have common interets.

No contact orders are a great tool, and viable only at the high-population end of the spectrum; the PDs, the LTs the CPs - everyone else needs to manage (IMO) their Ref welfare, followed by their crew welfare, then their player welfare in a triage system. The best tool for tiny, tiny games is simply refusal of service - economically, getting bookings to sign up to a code of conduct and rigorously enforcing that. By this stage we're into an Adult Safeguarding style of framework, which means ('sup Risk Assessments!) having robust codes of conduct, booking contracts that necessarily link into those and ensuring the means to pull people who break those contracts from a game and get them home safely should something go wrong.


----------



## Morrus

GRIMJIM said:


> Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.
> 
> I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in *good company* having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale - and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the *ACLU *and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.
> 
> From what I can decipher of what he's said, this seems roughly analogous to the accusations made against *Lawrence Krauss*, which read as socially awkward misunderstandings and cringeworthy obliviousness. Social awkwardness and people on the spectrum may be something both the skeptic community and the gaming community have in common, which could account for the bacchanal atmosphere some 'Nerd Proms' descend into.
> 
> Even though I've got a good reason to personally dislike him on that basis, I'm just not prepared to throw him under the bus any more than I would anyone else. There are accusations, but that doesn't make them facts. As others have pointed out we have a legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Others have suggested that this is somehow a bad principle or limited to a purely legal context. That isn't the case, it's a basic logical principle - the burden of proof - which is why it's utilised in legal cases as well as science, and why it's a good general rule for life. Sure, personal bias and relationships can get in the way, but that's precisely why we have processes in both these spheres to encourage objectivity.
> 
> We are, however, operating in the social sphere and it seems unlikely that any legal action will result from this. So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened. Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored. This hardly seems fair or just, though one can certainly appreciate why it would worry people for accusers to be identified. Ideally, this would be handled by the courts and both accuser and accused would remain anonymous until such time as a judgement was rendered.
> 
> The world is less than ideal though and we must make do.
> 
> Part of that 'making do' should be extending the benefit of the doubt. Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all. Surely we can agree that this isn't a good way to proceed? To - metaphorically - lynch someone, purely because an accusation is made? That can lead to *some very dark places*.
> 
> By all means take precautions, investigate further, but don't lose sight of the principle of justice and fairness in the pursuit of social 'justice'.
> 
> Contrary to what some likely think, I'm all for social justice in terms of treating people equally and fairly. Ironically it's these left/lib values that are the very things that have lead me to oppose the ideologically drive 'regressive left' which seems to be in full voice throughout this thread. That doesn't mean I'm on the side of the populist right, the Jordan Petersons and their ilk either, certainly not on the side of them 'they're all lying' kind of people in this thread.
> 
> That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial - both instances in Canada. I'm most aware of issues in Canada thanks to Diana Davison's work with *The Lighthouse Project*. The fact of the matter is that we really have no idea how many accusations are false. Estimates vary horrendously and while people rightly decry how few sexual misconduct or rape cases are prosecuted, the same is true - perhaps even more so - for false accusations. They're hard to prosecute for many of the same reasons that sex crimes are hard to prosecute, with additional political issues not unlike the ones that have caused problems with prosecuting grooming gangs in the UK.
> 
> It's anywhere from that tiny percentage we're aware of, up to the full number of claims that are never prosecuted. Neither extreme is likely, but anecdotally police officers and investigators state that it's higher than we might think. Still that's colloquial and we shouldn't put too much weight on that either.
> 
> It's a conundrum. How do we address the clear issues that there are in prosecuting these cases while still providing due process and consideration for the accused? That's a problem more for the courts than us, but not prosecuting witchhunts also seems like a no-brainer. 'Trust but verify' rather than 'Listen and believe' as we used to say in GG. Speaking of which, it was brought up in the context of supposedly being a hate movement, which it was not and actual evidence exists contrary to that belief. That just goes to show that even evidence won't convince some people.
> 
> Some people want to address it by lowering the standard of evidence, but the advent of genetic forensics has cleared a lot of people who were convicted on the basis of testimony and accusations. Lowering the standard of evidence doesn't seem like a good idea and that does mean that guilty people are going to go free. Blackstone's Formulation remains a useful ethical guide and it was rather horrifying to see people in this thread decrying it and being willing to see innocent people jailed, or worse.
> 
> Others, even more horrifyingly, have tried to get things shifted to an *inquisitorial system* of justice in sexual cases. Why this is a terrible idea should be clear to anyone.
> 
> So there doesn't appear to be any good solutions to that problem, but that's one for the legal systems and the courts. I would suggest that we - as individuals - give the benefit of the doubt and try to take some of the heat out of this febrile atmosphere, but I don't see that kind of logic going over too well with many people. In fact, it - and much of this post most likely - will be taken as something that it isn't. A protection of abusers, or an attack on the (allegedly) abused. That's how bad things have gotten. Not to mention that often the people you have to defend the rights of, are unpleasant. They might be creepy, they might be fascists, they might be paedophiles, but even genuinely, provenly repugnant people still have human rights.
> 
> As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'. This doesn't mean I'm pro-harassment, and I have had to intercede myself at events in the past. I am, however, concerned about these policies as many of them seem to be ideologically driven and to 'Trojan Horse' agendas and censorship. I've attended more than one convention which, if the policy were strictly enforced, would have had no sales room and no games. Many of these policies derive from the pattern on the Geek Feminism Wiki, and this has caused *problems elsewhere*, let alone gaming cons. I am very pleased to see that Dragonmeet has walked back their version some since the last one I attended. Still, they seem completely unnecessary and very open for abuse. All it takes is one person to be a jerk and either the con staff will be outed as hypocrites, or things will go horribly wrong.
> 
> Between the law and looking out for each other, I think we have all the tools we need. Having anti-harassment policies seems pointless and, I hate to say it since the term gets abused, but it seems like 'virtue signalling'. I mean, they're even *measuring skirts* at PAX now. It's like we've gone back in time 70 years, not forward, and yet it's being driven by people who call themselves 'progressive'. It's all rather confusing to a grumpy old leftie libertine.
> 
> Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.
> 
> To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.
> 
> 
> These are serious issues, which I take seriously.
> Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.
> Accusations should be taken seriously.
> I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.
> Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.
> People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.
> These things are business for the courts.
> Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.
> 
> Hopefully people will address the points.




Welcome back. Probably should have checked the rules before trotting out derogatory terms like “social justice warrior” and “virtue signalling”. Don’t post in the thread again, please.


----------



## Afrodyte

GRIMJIM said:


> If you were accused of something, wouldn't you want there to be a degree of scepticism and a requirement for something backing it up?
> 
> Empathy is a two-way street here I think.




That's a lovely abstract intellectual discussion.

Still want the pics though.

Also, at these events, would I be allowed to bring my own beverages, to be on the safe side?


----------



## GRIMJIM

Catulle said:


> That's likely at the crux of the issue, Grim. I mean, I'm keeping an eye on _you_ throughout - declaration time; I'm married to somebody you directly harassed back in the day, and I'm close to somebody else impacted by your social media following. I'll wear those biases and I mention them so it's clear if/when I diverge into addressing you rather than your arguments.
> 
> I'll address LARP since that, rather than conventions, is where I suspect we have common interets.
> 
> No contact orders are a great tool, and viable only at the high-population end of the spectrum; the PDs, the LTs the CPs - everyone else needs to manage (IMO) their Ref welfare, followed by their crew welfare, then their player welfare in a triage system. The best tool for tiny, tiny games is simply refusal of service - economically, getting bookings to sign up to a code of conduct and rigorously enforcing that. By this stage we're into an Adult Safeguarding style of framework, which means ('sup Risk Assessments!) having robust codes of conduct, booking contracts that necessarily link into those and ensuring the means to pull people who break those contracts from a game and get them home safely should something go wrong.




Well I can't very well leave that hanging without a response since it's an accusation.

I have never harassed anyone, or directed anyone to harass anyone and I'll mind you to back that up. I have certainly had disagreements and strong ones with people, reframing disagreement as 'harassment' has sadly become a common tactic, and was back in the day too. Sad to have seen it spread. Obnoxious behaviour, cheating, cliqueishness and so on sometimes elicits a negative response.

What you suggest here sounds rife with clique favouritism, bias, social ostracism and 'mean girls'. This seems like a source of abuse, rather than something to prevent it. Part of the problem, not any sort of solution.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

GRIMJIM said:


> Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.
> 
> I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in *good company* having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale - and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the *ACLU *and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.



First, let’s be clear:


> In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.




(The ACLU page you linked to.)

IOW, the ACLU does not advocate the suppression of public allegations of wrongdoing, however harmful they may be, but rather, they conform to the mindset of Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis:

~ “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

~ “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”

~”If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”



> Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.
> 
> To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.
> 
> These are serious issues, which I take seriously.



Good.


> Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.



Yes.


> Accusations should be taken seriously.



They are.


> I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.



For all the rhetoric of that word and it’s attendant contextual meaning, there are a lot of “witches” currently being exposed, caught and brought to justice.  Even wealthy and powerful ones.

So I respectfully disagree with both the use of the term AND the conclusion that society’s pendulum has reached the opposite extreme.



> Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.




“Innocent until proven guilty” is a fine legal standard, but in our private lives, we don’t have the luxury of that much certainty.  Nobody- except the well-heeled- on getting a weird feeling about a babysitter candidate is going to pay for and wait for a through background investigation before entrusting their kids to that person.  They’re going to act on their suspicions.  

IOW, its pointless to try to set that as your social standard for information like this: verification takes too much time and money to be meaningfully applied in everyday life.  We simply don’t have the tools and money to make it otherwise.


> People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.




I agree, but really, that “ruination” occurs because too many people don’t pay attention to the facts after a headline or two.  When the acquitted and exonerated often have to move away to regain any semblance of normalcy, _that isn’t the fault of their accusers, but the people who remain willfully ignorant of the facts._

Don’t blame the accuser, blame people for their laziness.


> These things are business for the courts.




For reasons stated multiple times above, *no*.  Not exclusively, at least.  To refresh on 2 of them:

1. Courts have rules of evidentiary admissibility, which can be difficult hurdles to clear.  Did you watch the video I posted in which Mexican reporter strike the man behind her on live TV?  She claims he groped her; if that’s the case, it’s very difficult to see.  AND THAT’S IN FRONT OF A LIVE CAMERA.  Odds are good, no prosecutor would bring a case for sexual harassment based on that footage alone.

2. Because of the difficulties of gathering quality evidence, and the complicated psychology of sex-related crimes, there may also be ZERO recourse in the courts due to the elapsing of the statute of limitations.



> Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.




Antiharassment policies serve a definite role.  They make it difficult for offenders and enforcers of the law to claim ignorance of the law.  They likewise raise victims’ awareness of remedies and the avenues down they can pursue to address their concerns.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Morrus said:


> Welcome back. Probably should have checked the rules before trotting out derogatory terms like “social justice warrior” and “virtue signalling”. Don’t post in the thread again, please.




I don't consider these to be derogatory terms, especially when deliberately put into 'scare quotes'. They have descriptive utility - and I even qualified the 'virtue signalling'. If you're speech policing and operating a harshly censorious atmosphere there's clearly no point or capacity to even have a discussion and I'll leave you to it - in this thread at least. A cautionary note that echo chambers breed extremism though.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> That's a lovely abstract intellectual discussion.
> 
> Still want the pics though.
> 
> Also, at these events, would I be allowed to bring my own beverages, to be on the safe side?




I had all ready suggested someone creating a full electrified body suit, if their is consent the suit is deactivated, anyone else would take a few hundred volts. Extreme possibly, but effective, and no more extreme that expecting me to be prepared to video every comment AFTER it is made. Know any good electrical engineers?


----------



## Afrodyte

Jeanneliza said:


> I had all ready suggested someone creating a full electrified body suit, if their is consent the suit is deactivated, anyone else would take a few hundred volts. Extreme possibly, but effective, and no more extreme that expecting me to be prepared to video every comment AFTER it is made. Know any good electrical engineers?




Unfortunately, no. And of the ones I could find, I doubt many of them are also libel and slander attorneys since apparently that's also a standard I must adhere to when considering how to appropriately gauge risk in a situation where I'm surrounded by strange men who may or may not have a history of harassing women.


----------



## Morrus

GRIMJIM said:


> I don't consider these to be derogatory terms, especially when deliberately put into 'scare quotes'. They have descriptive utility - and I even qualified the 'virtue signalling'. If you're speech policing and operating a harshly censorious atmosphere there's clearly no point or capacity to even have a discussion and I'll leave you to it - in this thread at least. A cautionary note that echo chambers breed extremism though.




The rules about those terms may be (relatively) new, but the ones about arguing with moderators and posting in threads you’ve been asked not to are 20 years old. I know you’re aware of them.


----------



## Catulle

GRIMJIM said:


> Well I can't very well leave that hanging without a response since it's an accusation.
> 
> I have never harassed anyone, or directed anyone to harass anyone and I'll mind you to back that up. I have certainly had disagreements and strong ones with people, reframing disagreement as 'harassment' has sadly become a common tactic, and was back in the day too. Sad to have seen it spread. Obnoxious behaviour, cheating, cliqueishness and so on sometimes elicits a negative response.
> 
> What you suggest here sounds rife with clique favouritism, bias, social ostracism and 'mean girls'. This seems like a source of abuse, rather than something to prevent it. Part of the problem, not any sort of solution.




I can't in all fairness not respond while also appreciating that we're been told to drop it here - I'd be glad to talk it out with you elsewhere and will chuck you a message over Facebook if you still use it?


----------



## RedJenOSU

To any male reading this thread:

Before you say that you've never harassed someone in your life, please consider these questions and note that this is not an exhaustive list:

Have you ever told a rape joke?
Have you ever repeated a rape joke?
Have you ever catcalled anyone?
Have you ever told a joke that implied the woman should have been "in the kitchen"?
Have you ever told someone to suck your junk?
Have you ever called someone "gay", "a fag", or "a homo"?
Have you ever told a dirty joke and have someone not laugh?
Have you ever called a woman a "girl" in a professional setting?
Have you ever grabbed your junk in the general direction of a stranger?
Have you ever deliberately taken up more than your allocated space on a bus or airplane (manspreading)?
Have you ever teabagged someone (in person, in a video game, or any other media)?
Have you ever interrupted a female to better explain what they are explaining without being asked?
Have you ever found yourself talking to someone's cleavage or been told "my eye's are up here"?
If you are being honest and your answer is yes to any of those questions, then I would caution you against claiming to never have harassed anyone.

Have you ever been accused of mansplaining? Have you ever jokingly told someone to "hush, the men are talking"?

I'm not calling anyone a bad guy, what I'm trying to do is let you know that some of the things that seem natural and everyday to many men aren't all that innocent to someone else. I'm asking you to be better than you've been before and keep trying to be better.


----------



## Catulle

RedJenOSU said:


> *all that... stuff. I don't want to say good, so valuable?*




That's rather the point you were making earlier on about systemic issues but made extremely clear (I have done more than half of these things, and that's on me)

Regards,

Barry


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In the interests of full disclosure, I can confess to:

 1, 5, and 6, only in all-male gatherings of friends.

12, only among friends & family- especially my Mom, with whom I have 50 years of history of mutual interruptions.

Even with those caveats, I don’t claim I’ve never harassed.  Memory can be selective, and I’m pretty sure at least one thing I’ve done (not on that list) would qualify.  That was 29 years ago, and never repeated.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Afrodyte said:


> I'm sure _you_ would believe me, but the entire direction of this thread indicates that anyone who harassed me would have a far more vigorous defense from the members of this community.




I recognize almost none of the avatar names of the misogynists who crawled out from under rocks in this thread.  Essentially all of the names I do recognize...some of whom I tend to disagree with bitterly on anything related to gaming itself...are people who support and are inclined to believe the women.*

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion about Enworld.  Make sure to check "join date" and "posts" before ascribing anything to "the community". 

*An interesting corollary to that is that I have found myself thinking, "I gotta cut so-and-so some more slack.  We may disagree about Warlords and metagaming, but he's an ok guy after all..."  

Some things are more important than D&D, I guess.


----------



## prosfilaes

I can't find it on this page, but it's still in my list of replies to me, so:



			
				Charrua13 said:
			
		

> You're right, because the philosophical discussion about whether or not there needs to be some standard of evidence in order to believe the stories of women who's agency is being disrespected is SO much better than having a legal discussion about it. Because without evidence to the contrary, women actually aren't being disrespected or harassed...it's all in their heads.




If you build your argument out of straw, you hurt everyone on your side when the wolves come in and blow it away. Of course there needs to be a standard of evidence to believe anything. Believing any allegations of sexual assault _is_ a standard. One of the problems with it is that it's a standard that, having zero flexibility, tends to dissolve under any sort of pressure; people who believe in absolutes often seem to swing around the extremes, instead of approaching the complex truth. Also, good job giving fuel to any one who is terrified that one accusation, no matter how absurd, can destroy everything, by attacking anyone who wants any sort of thought about the matter. I think the number going around here is 5% of accusations are false, which means an accusation is pretty strong evidence, but once in a nat 20 there will be alarm bells going off and perhaps some rational thought is needed. And it's pretty hard to talk about when those alarm bells are simple bias or even refusal to accept the obvious and when they're indicative of a real problem in the accusation if someone is going off on everyone who isn't a 100% extremist.


----------



## Ancalagon

GRIMJIM said:


> E So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened.




... except the accused admired to wrong doing.



> Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored.




He's posted here a number of times.  He edited some of his posts because he realized they weren't helping.



> Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all.



.  But harassment and sexual violence can make people lose their job!  Your boss is molesting you, no one will believe you, you quit and lose your job.  There is a cost to the victims!  



> That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial - both instances in Canada.



The Ghomeshi trial was a giant mess... but Ghomeshi was a creep.  He's admitted wrongdoing too.



> As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'.



I would hope that our standards of behavior and ethics go above and beyond "is it legal?".... 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## S'mon

RedJenOSU said:


> To any male reading this thread:
> [*]Have you ever found yourself talking to someone's cleavage...
> If you are being honest and your answer is yes to any of those questions, then I would caution you against claiming to never have harassed anyone.




You seriously think being distracted by someone's cleavage is an act of harassment (but only if a male is distracted)?

Several of your standards were pretty appalling, but I think that is the worst.


----------



## Morrus

I'd like to make it clear that "not criminal" is not the standard of behaviour we expect in our community. If you're committing crimes, you're way beyond the standard of behaviour we expect of you.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Chris Clinch said:


> ok, I do not post much on here, but this article,,, lol where do I begin. Ok I have been in law for over 21 years, and anyone else who has probably cringed like me when they read this. There are three sides to every story, his side, her side and the truth. If he did what he is accused of, it is not appropriate, but to post a online article with the accusations with very little evidence knowing it could wreck someones career was pretty amateurish. If a person wants to be anonymous, guess what YOU can't use that information, a person has a right to face their accuser and if it can't be corroborated do not use it. Like I said if he did what they said, it is not cool, but it is not illegal and not worthy of internet bashing to destroy a career, when very little of it is substantiated. It boils down to a he said she said, like I said not cool if it is true. If you are a "journalist" I guess you skipped the part about liability and defamation of character. I hope you got a lawyer, because that train might a be a coming. I will say it again, I don't like the creepy guys at cons, and yes they are there and have no idea how to act in a social environment. They take it wayyy to far and need to be tossed, but from what I read, I was like hmmmm comments yes, harassment, not so sure. Not worthy of a article like that with all you had was he said she said. I will leave it at that, and I am a little disappointed that a article of that low quality was even posted. It started out as a good read and jumped off the cliff into a bash on one man. It had very little substance to back anything up, only having "stuff you had seen" or anonymous complaints. Like I said, it had a important point but devolved into something I would have seen in the Enquirer, and for you to even suggest you are impartial is a complete Lie. Anyone who reads that article can see there is some venom towards Fannon by Chris, that is obvious in the article and the reply to Fannon that no further contact was necessary. Next time check your sources and make sure there is no other agenda, if what I read on the other posts is true about the witnesses, well sorry but you got some egg on your face. Next time do an article with stories so people can learn, look out for stuff, take action, not a personal witch hunt, you just lost all credibility.



Very well said. I hope your comments are read by the staff here and cause a quality increase in what gets posted to the main page.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Something like 400+ combined years of UK/USA precedent in which criminal indictments are considered public records.



When did EN World become a court of law?


----------



## Particle_Man

Also, false accusations are fairly easy to detect when it comes to sexual harassment and rape. The motives of false accusers fall into categories like “teenager in conservative family gets pregnant but fears admitting consensual sex to her parents”. Often, just as with harassers, there are detectable patterns of behaviour wrt people making false accusations.  So if there was a Magic con artist thing going on, there would already be an established historical record of lying.

But when you get “he said/she said” cases where the accused harasser claims to be misunderstood, and says things were consensual or he thought they were anyway?  That doesn’t fit the established and understood patterns of false accusations. Sexual harassment or assault is what happened there, almost certainly.

This might prove useful as to knowing the profiles of false accusers. Most people don’t fit these profiles and they are not hard to identify.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/amp/


----------



## Particle_Man

JacktheRabbit said:


> Very well said. I hope your comments are read by the staff here and cause a quality increase in what gets posted to the main page.




I kinda miss Chris Clinch too, what with his hilarious misunderstanding of the difference between a court of law and journalism, despite those alleged 21 years of legal experience. But aside from the comedy value there is no truth to what Chris Clinch wrote. It has been well-established by better legal minds that there is no libel in the OP article and SPF doesn’t want to even hear people use that club to try to attack the OP (SPF was  begging them to stop) so even an attempted libel case would not be brought forward.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Particle_Man said:


> I kinda miss Chris Clinch too, what with his hilarious misunderstanding of the difference between a court of law and journalism, despite those alleged 21 years of legal experience. But aside from the comedy value there is no truth to what Chris Clinch wrote. It has been well-established by better legal minds that there is no libel in the OP article and SPF doesn’t want to even hear people use that club to try to attack the OP (SPF was  begging them to stop) so even an attempted libel case would not be brought forward.



I am more tired of the court of public opinion character  assassination posts here at EN World.


----------



## billd91

S'mon said:


> You seriously think being distracted by someone's cleavage is an act of harassment (but only if a male is distracted)?
> 
> Several of your standards were pretty appalling, but I think that is the worst.




If you're doing it enough to make the environment hostile - I can't see why ogling breasts wouldn't constitute sexual harassment. Dumbasses gotta learn to control themselves and their distractability.


----------



## Morrus

JacktheRabbit said:


> I am more tired of the court of public opinion character  assassination posts here at EN World.




“Court of public opinion” is a code word for “basic social consequences” used by those who fear those consequences.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JacktheRabbit said:


> When did EN World become a court of law?



It isn’t.

I answered the question as asked.  “On ENWorld” was not specified as a caveat.

And even if it had been, the question was why victims names were protected and not the names of the accused.  The answer is the same: because that is what the law allows.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Morrus said:


> “Court of public opinion” is a code word for “basic social consequences” used by those who fear those consequences.



No. It is pointing out that someones reputation is bring attacked with no evidence. Did it happen did it not happen? No one here knows. But the author of the "article" has decided that the allegation is both proof of specific and proof of industry wide problems and proof that not enough is bring done to address them. 

Again this is a discussion form on the internet. No one here knows the truth. Posts made supporting or condemning the accusations may be genuine they may be troll they may be sock puppets. 

Broad topic conversation on how conventions should plan for and address these problems is all and good. Real proof can be out forward on if a Con has a posted policy. Real conversation can be made about if a policy is written intelligently. 

But the same does not apply to specific incidents that no one here has direct proof of or any way to factually demonstrate that proof even if they did.


----------



## Particle_Man

JacktheRabbit said:


> I am more tired of the court of public opinion character  assassination posts here at EN World.




You wouldn’t, by any chance, have more than two decades of legal experience under your belt would you?


----------



## Eltab

RedJenOSU said:


> To any male reading this thread:
> Before you say that you've never harassed someone in your life, please consider these questions and note that this is not an exhaustive list:
> -list-
> *I'm not calling anyone a bad guy*, what I'm trying to do is let you know that some of the things that seem natural and everyday to many men aren't all that innocent to someone else. I'm asking you to be better than you've been before and keep trying to be better.



re: the bolded - Yes you are and yes you did.  You started with the assumption that every male is a bad guy and demanded they prove (to _your_ satisfaction) that we are not.

I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.  You just aren't heading anywhere near that direction with your post; you're raising hackles instead.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Particle_Man said:


> You wouldn’t, by any chance, have more than two decades of legal experience under your belt would you?



I have none and want none. 

What I hate is people bring condemned without proof. Look at Bill Cosby. There were lots of skkegations and peopleleftsnd right thought he was guilty. But he got his day in court and AFTER he was found guilty, only then was he expelled from the Film Academy. They had months and months to do it based just on the allegations but they did the right thing and acted after he had is day in court. 

To me, a mere guy with no legal experience, is how is should be done. If you want to draw and quarter someone for their actions than take their punk ass to court get th m convicted THEN have your way with them. I will be 200% behind you on it.


----------



## Chris Clinch

love the personal attacks, amazing you have such a sad life,


----------



## billd91

Eltab said:


> re: the bolded - Yes you are and yes you did.  You started with the assumption that every male is a bad guy and demanded they prove (to _your_ satisfaction) that we are not.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.  You just aren't heading anywhere near that direction with your post; you're raising hackles instead.




Maybe you should realize that many of those things she listed do constitute behaviors that can, when they contribute to a hostile environment, constitute harassment or one that allows it to thrive. Many of them do contribute the atmosphere of pervasive sexism women face in their lives. Maybe instead of hackles it should raise awareness of someone else's perspective, maybe even shame when we look back and realize that what we thought was just being one of the guys may have been making other people in the room uncomfortable. 

If this is raising hackles rather than awareness, maybe you should reflect on why you're reacting defensively. Admittedly, I've done some of those things on the list (still do since I don't really sign on to the whole 'manspreading' thing as a quintessentially male behavior - particularly on buses and in airports where it's widely pervasive space-defending behavior from nearly everyone - at least it seems to be in the US). And there are things I regret doing that would be considered sexual harassment back when I was younger and less receptive to other people's perspectives. But I'm working on not reacting defensively when women complain about the obstacles they face. I'm working on doing better at listening to them rather than trying to argue them down. I'm working on doing better at letting them make their statement without interrupting. I'll never claim to be perfect, I can only claim to be trying to do better than before.


----------



## Particle_Man

Chris Clinch said:


> love the personal attacks, amazing you have such a sad life,




Chris Clinch, I hope that your sick child is feeling better.  Are you still claiming that there is a libel case here or are you reconsidering that position in light of other comments in this thread and in light of the fact that SPF is begging people not to claim that he was libeled?  If you need some time to read the counter arguments to your claim that is fine. I am in no particular hurry for a reply.


----------



## Eltab

From a school not a con, but here's something:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/05/tennessee-teen-stabs-male-student-with-scissors-after-pulls-up-her-dress-police-say.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JacktheRabbit said:


> No. It is pointing out that someones reputation is bring attacked with no evidence. Did it happen did it not happen? No one here knows. But the author of the "article" has decided that the allegation is both proof of specific and proof of industry wide problems and proof that not enough is bring done to address them.




1) an allegation of wrongdoing has occurred.

2) reporting allegations of wrongdoing is one aspect of the proper job of journalism, not character assassination.*

3) the accused has been a part of this thread and admitted at least some of his wrongdoing.**

So, zero points to you for adopting a “no evidence” position.





* if you don’t believe me, you really should start being more vocal about things like Smallville actress Allison Mack & NXIVM leader Keith Raniere being accused of human trafficking.  After all, nothing has been proven, just alleged.

** in fairness, some of which posts he- unfortunately- edited out.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) an allegation of wrongdoing has occurred.
> 
> 2) reporting allegations is one aspect of the job of journalism, not character assassination.
> 
> 3) the accused has been a part of this thread and admitted at least some of his wrongdoing.
> 
> So, zero points to you for adopting a “no evidence” position.



No. A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not. 

This is the internet. Can you prove it was really him? Maybe you can. Maybe he posted, admitted to his actions, and we know for certain that it was really him. 

That would make him the exception among all the topics of this kind posted here. 

Question. You say he admitted to some of the things hings he was accused of in the article. So are you assuming automatically that he is lying when he denies the others or are you assuming that author if this topic committed libel? It has to be one or the other.


----------



## Charrua13

prosfilaes said:


> I can't find it on this page, but it's still in my list of replies to me, so:
> 
> 
> 
> If you build your argument out of straw, you hurt everyone on your side when the wolves come in and blow it away. Of course there needs to be a standard of evidence to believe anything. Believing any allegations of sexual assault _is_ a standard. One of the problems with it is that it's a standard that, having zero flexibility, tends to dissolve under any sort of pressure; people who believe in absolutes often seem to swing around the extremes, instead of approaching the complex truth. Also, good job giving fuel to any one who is terrified that one accusation, no matter how absurd, can destroy everything, by attacking anyone who wants any sort of thought about the matter. I think the number going around here is 5% of accusations are false, which means an accusation is pretty strong evidence, but once in a nat 20 there will be alarm bells going off and perhaps some rational thought is needed. And it's pretty hard to talk about when those alarm bells are simple bias or even refusal to accept the obvious and when they're indicative of a real problem in the accusation if someone is going off on everyone who isn't a 100% extremist.




...or how about we just treat misogyny and toxic masculinity like the cancers they are to society.

If we constantly evaluate our behaviors, as men, accordingly the metaconversation is less about "are these allegations?" and "how are my actions perpetuating a society that is completely inhospitable to women?"

It's not about "did man A do nasty things to women A B C D."  Your parochial perspective on this matter, and that of most men on this forum, does nothing to promote the conversation of how toxic masculinity encourages men to be awful to women and ignore their agency, particularly within the gaming community.

So while the class appreciates your insistence on standing up and offering your opinions on the matter, quit derailing the conversation.  Now sit down.


----------



## billd91

JacktheRabbit said:


> No. A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not.
> 
> This is the internet. Can you prove it was really him? Maybe you can. Maybe he posted, admitted to his actions, and we know for certain that it was really him.




Are you saying you're more willing to assume that he's the victim of identity spoofing here on ENWorld than that his accusers may be telling the truth?


----------



## Hussar

/edit

Whoops, sorry, didn't realize how far the thread had moved on.

Nothing to see here.


----------



## Particle_Man

No it really doesn’t. If you are relying on Chris Clinch for that argument you both are sadly mistaken.

Edit: This was in reply to JacktheRabbit and his claims about libel. This is a fast thread!


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wait, now people are claiming it's not even SPF who posted in this thread?

The man has a Facebook account, among other internet footprints, and he's posted some of the exact same things there, as well as _actually discussing his participation in this thread_.

_And_ he writes (or did write) for this site, which means he already has an established forum handle and [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] knows his IP address.

Jesus fried chicken...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not.




Fair point.  I cannot personally ID whether it was SPF or someone else. 

However, on this board and others, those who can, have.


----------



## Riley37

JacktheRabbit said:


> I am more tired of the court of public opinion character assassination posts here at EN World.




You accuse EN World of allowing character assassination posts. But has a court of law ever convicted EN World of character assassination? Until a court delivers a verdict, you must presume innocence. That's how it works!

In the meantime, I recommend you read and ponder J.S. Mills "On Liberty", which discusses the relationship between society acting through government, with such power that codified checks and balances are necessary, and society acting through other means and on other scales.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Question. You say he admitted to some of the things hings he was accused of in the article. So are you assuming automatically that he is lying when he denies the others or are you assuming that author if this topic committed libel? *It has to be one or the other.*




Incorrect.

Reporting those he admits to cannot, by definition, be libel.

Those he does not admit to/actively denies may or may not be libel, depending on the actual underlying truth.  However, the truth may not be ascertainable to those doing the reporting.

But then it is a matter of proof in which the burden is on the person claiming they were libeled.  Here are the basic elements of proving a libel case (courtesy of FindLaw):



> First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
> 
> Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
> 
> Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
> 
> Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.




The third is kind of key.  A good-faith, non-negligent reporting of allegations goes a long way to immunizing a journalist and/or outlet from a libel case.  And under the best practices of the field, they will correct or retract previously published stories they later believe may believe were false.  If they do that, there won’t be much evidence of “negligence”.

Further, if the person claiming defamation was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation _if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement._

(This is a much higher standard than “negligence”.)


----------



## Doug McCrae

JacktheRabbit said:


> Can you prove it was really him?



Do you not think it's likely that the real Sean Patrick Fannon knows about this thread? If someone were pretending to be him then the real SPF would either have posted himself to clear up the confusion, made the site administrators aware of the deception, or both.


----------



## Afrodyte

Elfcrusher said:


> I recognize almost none of the avatar names of the misogynists who crawled out from under rocks in this thread.  Essentially all of the names I do recognize...some of whom I tend to disagree with bitterly on anything related to gaming itself...are people who support and are inclined to believe the women.*
> 
> I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion about Enworld.  Make sure to check "join date" and "posts" before ascribing anything to "the community".
> 
> *An interesting corollary to that is that I have found myself thinking, "I gotta cut so-and-so some more slack.  We may disagree about Warlords and metagaming, but he's an ok guy after all..."
> 
> Some things are more important than D&D, I guess.




I know it seems unfair that a woman traveling to an event by herself doesn't automatically trust strange men's good intentions, but better safe than sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. I have a few decades of experience in this sort of thing, so forgive me if I prioritize my own judgment of what's a safe environment for me and what isn't. I hope you can understand.


----------



## Afrodyte

I should say that this thread has been most enlightening in that it's been made abundantly clear to me that my priority as a woman in the hobby who would most likely travel to events alone is not ensuring my own safety from harassment or assault, not to mention safeguarding my reputation if such a thing happened despite my best efforts, but that I don't hurt men's feelings by judging them too harshly or exercising more than the male-approved amount of caution around strange men.

I'm glad you guys sorted me out on that.


----------



## Afrodyte

Also, in the event that I reject a man's advances and get murdered for it, will someone please ensure that I receive a properly Jewish burial?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Afrodyte said:


> I know it seems unfair that a woman traveling to an event by herself doesn't automatically trust strange men's good intentions, but better safe than sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. I have a few decades of experience in this sort of thing, so forgive me if I prioritize my own judgment of what's a safe environment for me and what isn't. I hope you can understand.




Little lady, don't worry your pretty little head about a thing and just trust ol' Uncle Elfcrusher with those tricky judgment decisions.  And math.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Eltab said:


> From a school not a con, but here's something:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/0...sors-after-pulls-up-her-dress-police-say.html




Notice the last line of that article: the guy claims he was teasing and "never exposed her".  So now we've got a hard-to-prove he said/she said case about what instigated the stabbing, but no ambiguity about the stabbing.  They were both issued juvenile summonses.

So if she can't prove that he harassed/assaulted her, will she end up with an assault with a weapon charge?

Yeah...victims playing action hero is a great way to solve this problem.


----------



## Hussar

I have to admit, I find the push back here utterly baffling.

Analogy time.  You're hosting a party.  A girl at the party comes to you and tells you that someone is bothering her and making her feel uncomfortable.  Is your reaction, seriously, to say, "Well, unless you can prove that, I'm not going to do anything"?  Seriously?  That's your reaction?

Because, let's be honest, that's what most Con's are - a big party.  I'm not talking about things like Gen Con or SoCal.  I'm talking about the regular, couple of hundred people con's that go on in pretty much every city every weekend.  

Last week I was at a board game meet up.  Twenty, ish, people in a bar, having some drinks and playing games.  Considering one table was playing Cards Against Humanity, the humor was pretty ribald.  But, everyone knew that going in and there were no problems.  

I would like to think that if any of the women at the meet up went to the owner and made a complaint, it would be dealt with quickly and up front.  None of this, "Well, did you whip out your cell phone to record the perp, ma'am?"  No.  Complaint is made, just like any other complaint, and management deals with it.  Full stop.

If I complain to the management that the people in the next room of my hotel room are playing their TV too loudly, do I need to bring a decibel meter to prove that it's too loud?  Or does management just call up to the room, and politely ask them to turn down their TV?

It's bloody ridiculous the heights that people seem to think we need to go to in order to be nice to each other.

One poster earlier drew an analogy between the Satanic panic days of D&D and harassment.  There's a big difference here though.  There is ABSOLUTELY no link between D&D and Satanism or the occult.  It was 100% fabricated.  Unless you believe the same is true of harassment, then there really is no equivalency.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Don’t read too many of the comments on at Fox page.  Soon you’ll start seeing the “she used too much force” and blaming feminism posts.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, I find the push back here utterly baffling.
> 
> Analogy time.  You're hosting a party.  A girl at the party comes to you and tells you that someone is bothering her and making her feel uncomfortable.  Is your reaction, seriously, to say, "Well, unless you can prove that, I'm not going to do anything"?  Seriously?  That's your reaction?
> 
> Because, let's be honest, that's what most Con's are - a big party.  I'm not talking about things like Gen Con or SoCal.  I'm talking about the regular, couple of hundred people con's that go on in pretty much every city every weekend.
> 
> Last week I was at a board game meet up.  Twenty, ish, people in a bar, having some drinks and playing games.  Considering one table was playing Cards Against Humanity, the humor was pretty ribald.  But, everyone knew that going in and there were no problems.
> 
> I would like to think that if any of the women at the meet up went to the owner and made a complaint, it would be dealt with quickly and up front.  None of this, "Well, did you whip out your cell phone to record the perp, ma'am?"  No.  Complaint is made, just like any other complaint, and management deals with it.  Full stop.
> 
> If I complain to the management that the people in the next room of my hotel room are playing their TV too loudly, do I need to bring a decibel meter to prove that it's too loud?  Or does management just call up to the room, and politely ask them to turn down their TV?
> 
> It's bloody ridiculous the heights that people seem to think we need to go to in order to be nice to each other.




Well said, but of _course_ their arguments are nonsense.  They're really arguing to defend an undeserved and reprehensible sense of privilege, so anything they grasp at is going to be straw.


----------



## Elf Witch

I read about half the replies and I could not stomach any more.  First of all the idea that if women are harassed at a con the police need to be involved and if they are not no harassment  took place or that is the only way to get justice is just ludicrous.  I have been on the con committee for literary cons like the Worldcon and unless the harassment involves touching, rape or other physical assault the police will not do jack. And believe me you don't have to be touched to be harassed. What most literary con now do is  is investigate and if we find cause is kick the person out and ban them for life. And even if the police do get involved often nothing comes of it unless it was serious. Usually the police just tells the harasser to knock it off and he is kicked out of the con. The police can't stop pervs from following women around and staring at them to the point that they are made so uncomfortable that their enjoyment of the con is being ruined and anytime the the woman looks at them the creep licks his lips just creepy crap like that.   

How do we investigate well we take statements and if we have a number of people complaining then  that is enough to act on if is just one person complaining we will watch the person to see if we can catch in the act. If there is security footage we will look at that. Sometimes people have captured the harassment on video which is helpful.    

What really gets me every freaking time this comes up is all the dudes coming up with the worry about the false allegations and the worry about the man's reputation and of the word witch hunt will be thrown around. And how everyone is innocent until proven. Here is my question to all these guys what about the women? How many women does it take to say this guy is a harasser for you to start seeing a pattern?  Sure women can lie but using occam razor when does it become more believable that the guy is a harasser versus all these women are just lying bitches out to destroy him?  For example I believe in Bill Cosby case there have been upwards up of 50 women who have spoken out. These always argue about the men but never seem to give a damn about the women and how being harassed affects them. How unsafe it makes them feel. Not once did I read any one of these men show any compassion for the plight of the women they were no busy worrying about the man accused which is typical in these cases.     



Some even claimed this was a left wing agenda. I am sorry I didn't know that protecting people from being harassed was a left wing thing I would think that it was a human rights thing.   

And can we stop pretending and excusing that harassing women is just some clueless geek behavior that some clueless dude does not know better. They know better and the majority doing it are predatory and get away with because the the guys around them enjoy their company and look the other way.


----------



## Riley37

Afrodyte said:


> ...forgive me if I prioritize my own judgment of what's a safe environment for me and what isn't. I hope you can understand.




I feel silly, giving a taken-as-literal response to something said with sarcasm. That said, I want it on record that there are participants who understand and respect your concerns. There's even, for what it's worth, at least one white cis man, with a college education and a few other of life's settings pegged at EASY (though not all). 

I hear Morrus telling you that he'd take you seriously. Hussar establishes the same position, in his analogy of hosting a party. I would count on DannyAlcatraz to show up, stand up, and possibly level up as a paladin. On another hand, yes, you have accurately observed a legion of trolls, casting Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, who prioritize a man's right to stare at a woman's cleavage. Would any of those trolls show up in person? If so, could a regular point out the "loose stairs" to you? I dunno. I'm not an in-person regular. And though some of the pro-FUD accounts in this thread may be sock puppets, there's others with double-digit levels. In another thread, recently, an EN World regular argued that D&D hasn't had any problems with racism in the last 40 years; you can reasonably take that as predictive of similar positions on sex and gender.

Since I'm neither your next of kin nor inheritor, I cannot guarantee disposition of your body, if some predator kills you for rejecting his advances at an EN World event. I won't pretend that such things never happen; I won't suggest that it was your fault for leading him on; I won't look for a "well, she was no angel" explanation; I won't argue that you *should* have been wearing a Garment of Shocking Grasp; and if police arrest a suspect, whose trial is unresolved at the time of the following year's event, then I will not petition EN World to welcome that suspect as an event participant, on the grounds that he's innocent until *proven* guilty. Adequate consolation? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Especially since my position, as stated, is not a consensus position among the participants in this thread.

Tip of the hat, for presenting yourself as a test case. That takes courage, to brave a range of responses, even here where you can log out for self-care, rather than a con where the equivalent is holing up in a hotel room.


----------



## Riley37

S'mon said:


> You seriously think being distracted by someone's cleavage is an act of harassment (but only if a male is distracted)?




I see you equating "found yourself talking to someone's cleavage" with "being distracted by someone's cleavage".

That's some major distortion. Distortion can be convenient, because "I was distracted!" is a normal human *state of mind* (even for those of us who aren't into cleavage), and thus SO much more sympathetic than "I was talking to her cleavage", which is an *action*.

I have, at times, been *distracted* by someone's cleavage, and yet still talked to her face. As a post-adolescent human, I have more control and responsibility for my *actions* than for my *thoughts*. (If, afterwards, she didn't realize that I was attracted to her, then that's a success of intention over instinct; if I *do* want to express interest, then I'll find a way.)


----------



## Riley37

Eltab said:


> re: the bolded - Yes you are and yes you did.  You started with the assumption that every male is a bad guy and demanded they prove (to _your_ satisfaction) that we are not.




I see no such demand. I see a list of questions, for us to ask *ourselves*, without telling anyone else the answers, as a checklist for whether we can honestly assert that we've never harassed anyone. The list of questions is not an assertion than the answer is yes. Not for any of the questions, not for any of the participants. If you want to take personal inventory of your past behavior, then the list is a resource. It's available, and optional.

If the list was pointed at anyone, then I infer it was pointed at GrimJim, who made the bold assertion that he's never harassed anyone, and who violated EN World forum rules right off the bat with his first post, then doubled down. Does his respect for forum boundaries inspire your confidence in how well he respects the personal boundaries of women at cons? Do you want to jump on his bandwagon? Do you boldly declare "If GrimJim is a bad guy then so am I"?

Okay then. That's your choice and your life. Just don't try to buy AfroDyte or RedJenOSU a drink.


----------



## S'mon

billd91 said:


> If you're doing it *enough to make the environment hostile* - I can't see why ogling breasts wouldn't constitute sexual harassment. Dumbasses gotta learn to control themselves and their distractability.




Sure, many actions could constitute harassment if done repeatedly, but the phrase was _"Have you ever"_.


----------



## Afrodyte

S'mon said:


> Sure, many actions could constitute harassment if done repeatedly, but the phrase was _"Have you ever"_.




Can I have your legal name, social security number, current address and a clear and recently taken picture of yourself, please?


----------



## S'mon

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, social security number, current address and a clear and recently taken picture of yourself, please?




At first I thought you were seeking to demonstrate that threatening behaviour such as your above statement can be a one off, that sufficiently extreme behaviour doesn't require a pattern. But on reflection I think you are actually non-ironically making a personal attack against me, calling me a potential harasser?


----------



## prosfilaes

Charrua13 said:


> ...or how about we just treat misogyny and toxic masculinity like the cancers they are to society.




Because way too many cases where something was treated as a cancer to society end with series of executions of people who aren't ideologically pure until a coup sets up a stable and at least relatively less brutal regime? 



> It's not about "did man A do nasty things to women A B C D."




That is the topic, the conversation. I'm not sure what gives you the right to dictate the metaconversation here.



> Your parochial perspective on this matter, and that of most men on this forum, does nothing to promote the conversation of how toxic masculinity encourages men to be awful to women and ignore their agency, particularly within the gaming community. ...
> 
> So while the class appreciates your insistence on standing up and offering your opinions on the matter, quit derailing the conversation.  Now sit down.




You aren't the class; given that you joined this month and seem to have posted only on this thread, you're not even really part of the class. You are one person who seems to think you and you alone can dictate what is derailing the topic. Certainly your targets are marginally relevant to the topic, but unlike a live class, my posts do not stop you from posting on this thread. Instead of yelling at people, maybe you can offer your opinions on the problems and their solutions.


----------



## Afrodyte

S'mon said:


> At first I thought you were seeking to demonstrate that threatening behaviour such as your above statement can be a one off, that sufficiently extreme behaviour doesn't require a pattern. But on reflection I think you are actually non-ironically making a personal attack against me, calling me a potential harasser?




Is that a no?


----------



## Afrodyte

prosfilaes said:


> Instead of yelling at people, maybe you can offer your opinions on the problems and their solutions.




I don't see  [MENTION=6951764]Charrua13[/MENTION] yelling at anyone. Are you sure you're not just being hysterical and blowing innocent comments out of proportion?

Also, can I have your legal name, social security number, current address and a clear and recently taken picture of yourself, please?


----------



## Riley37

S'mon said:


> At first I thought you were seeking to demonstrate that threatening behaviour such as your above statement can be a one off, that sufficiently extreme behaviour doesn't require a pattern. But on reflection I think you are actually non-ironically making a personal attack against me, calling me a potential harasser?




If a woman posted "2+2=4", and you responded with "So you're saying 2+2<4? That's not fair!", then I would just shrug, because at this point it's an established pattern.

You're taking Afrodyte's politely worded request as a personal attack.

You COULD answer "no, that's more than I choose to share with you at this time"
or you could just say "no" and let that be a full sentence.

Apparently the scenario of "Smith asks Jones for something, Jones says no, Smith accepts that answer and moves on" is unfamiliar to you. It's a scenario outside of your known range of human interactions, and also beyond your imagination.

It's more and more apparent, with each of your posts, that AfroDyte has you accurately pegged. And not in a good way.

If a woman were attending her first EN World con, and she told me "I met someone named S'mon and he offered me a ride in his vehicle. Should I trust him, or should I err on the side of safety and treat him as a potential harasser?"


----------



## prosfilaes

Riley37 said:


> You're taking Afrodyte's politely worded request as a personal attack.




"Please tell me, what is your bra size?" That's a politely worded request. It's one that's clearly, massively inappropriate. In the right context, it could well be a nasty personal attack.



> Apparently the scenario of "Smith asks Jones for something, Jones says no, Smith accepts that answer and moves on" is unfamiliar to you.




We're discussing sexual harassment, and you don't have a clue why that behavior might be inappropriate on Smith's part, why Jones might find a simple "no" vastly insufficient?


----------



## Mouseferatu

S'mon said:


> But on reflection I think you are actually non-ironically making a personal attack against me, calling me a potential harasser?




Calling you a "potential harasser" isn't a personal attack. As far as she's concerned, you are. As far as she's concerned, so am I. So is any man she doesn't know well and trust.

That's the entire point, and the entire problem in our hobby, and our society, that needs fixing. Like it or not, the sad fact is that women have very good reason to err on the side of being too suspicious than not suspicious enough. And men taking that personally, or fighting against efforts to solve the problem, just makes it worse.

The fact that you're treating that list of questions as an accusation, as a list of "harassing behaviors," when it was _clearly stated_ that it wasn't--but was, instead, merely a list of things that, if you've done, should inspire further self-reflection--is not helping your case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mouseferatu said:


> Calling you a "potential harasser" isn't a personal attack. As far as she's concerned, you are. As far as she's concerned, so am I. So is any man she doesn't know well and trust.
> 
> That's the entire point, and the entire problem in our hobby, and our society, that needs fixing. Like it or not, the sad fact is that women have very good reason to err on the side of being too suspicious than not suspicious enough. And men taking that personally, or fighting against efforts to solve the problem, just makes it worse.
> 
> The fact that you're treating that list of questions as an accusation, as a list of "harassing behaviors," when it was _clearly stated_ that it wasn't--but was, instead, merely a list of things that, if you've done, should inspire further self-reflection--is not helping your case.




It’s akin to being a black man in the south seeing white guys wearing or bearing some form of the confederate flag.  Unless/until I get further information on that person, my default position is “that guy is a potential threat to my life, liberty, etc.”

...but worse, it’s _all_ guys.


----------



## Caliban

Mouseferatu said:


> Calling you a "potential harasser" isn't a personal attack. As far as she's concerned, you are. As far as she's concerned, so am I. So is any man she doesn't know well and trust.
> 
> That's the entire point, and the entire problem in our hobby, and our society, that needs fixing. Like it or not, the sad fact is that women have very good reason to err on the side of being too suspicious than not suspicious enough. And men taking that personally, or fighting against efforts to solve the problem, just makes it worse.
> 
> The fact that you're treating that list of questions as an accusation, as a list of "harassing behaviors," when it was _clearly stated_ that it wasn't--but was, instead, merely a list of things that, if you've done, should inspire further self-reflection--is not helping your case.




Well, the list of questions may have made him feel uncomfortable.   I know it made *me* feel uncomfortable, and I'm 90% certain my answer to all those questions is "No"...past the age of 18 at least.  I'm less certain of my actions during the hormone induced haze that shrouds my teenage years.   

But just thinking about those questions in relation to myself was disconcerting and doubt inducing.   I went from "definitely not...probably not...what if I did...could it have been seen that way by someone else?" 

And making me feel uncomfortable or uncertain about myself or my actions makes me want to mount an aggressive defense, because "F*** You, you don't know me".    

Then I remembered I'm also an adult, theoretically a mature individual, and that this is not about me (or about the 5e rules - because petty rules arguments are a hill I will die on) and let it go.


----------



## Hussar

Again, I'm not really sure what the massive problem is.

What do people think happens?  Woman in a Catwoman cosplay costume feels uncomfortable because some guy has been hanging around just a bit too long.  So, she goes to the con staff and says, "Hey, umm, this guy's been kinda creeping my out.  He's been hanging around a long time.  Could you have a word?"  

Do you really think the police are going to get involved at this point?  

So, the con staff goes to buddy and pulls him aside politely.  "Umm, look, we're all here to have a good time.  I'm just telling you now that there has been a complaint that you've been hanging around the cosplay area a bit long and maybe it might be a good idea if you checked out some of the other areas."

99% of the time, that's the end of it.  Is buddy a bit embarrassed?  Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, there's no witch hunt, no drama, just some hurt feelings.  Better safe than sorry.

Or, maybe, buddy says, "Oh, hey, that's my daughter over there in the Power Girl costume and I'm just hanging out here to make sure she's ok."  Again, no harm, no foul.  Job done and we move on.

What needs to happen though is that people need to be educated that:

1.  Making a complaint is perfectly fine.  If someone is making you uncomfortable, it's okay to speak up.  You won't be publicly humiliated.  You won't be subjected to endless questions about "proof" and "evidence".  You can make the claim, and some action will occur.

2.  Having a complaint about you is not the end of the world.  It might be a perfectly innocent mistake, or it might be a teachable moment.  In any case, the protection of women and ensuring that women are welcome at gaming conventions is far, far more important than your momentary discomfort.


----------



## Afrodyte

Riley37 said:


> If a woman posted "2+2=4", and you responded with "So you're saying 2+2<4? That's not fair!", then I would just shrug, because at this point it's an established pattern.
> 
> You're taking Afrodyte's politely worded request as a personal attack.
> 
> You COULD answer "no, that's more than I choose to share with you at this time"
> or you could just say "no" and let that be a full sentence.
> 
> Apparently the scenario of "Smith asks Jones for something, Jones says no, Smith accepts that answer and moves on" is unfamiliar to you. It's a scenario outside of your known range of human interactions, and also beyond your imagination.
> 
> It's more and more apparent, with each of your posts, that AfroDyte has you accurately pegged. And not in a good way.
> 
> If a woman were attending her first EN World con, and she told me "I met someone named S'mon and he offered me a ride in his vehicle. Should I trust him, or should I err on the side of safety and treat him as a potential harasser?"




I think your post got cut off.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Well here we are day 5 or 6 and still the discussion carries on despite some clear efforts to either derail it or get the thread shut down.
Those of you complaining about Afrodyte's list need to check yourselves. What she listed are in fact what in therapeutic circles are called "red flags". Simply the earliest indicators of potentially harassive or abusive behavior. A red flag is merely a warning to be alert, in themselves they are not actual harassment, but the next steps, escalations likely are. It is one of those protective measures we women again, are taught from the time we are able to talk to keep ourselves safe. And I agree with her on this, too many here on this thread have been flying red flags right and left while simultaneously making it clear they are less likely to believe a woman who makes a complaint than a man is guilty even after he admits it.
I have seen more than a few react to her post as if she is accusing all men. wah wah wah, meantime 6 days of hearing guys suggest ALL women are potentially liars intent on ruining some poor innocent guys life, based on theoreticals, while we cite actual cases that are all ready happening. If you guys hate generalizations so much from women(generalizations that stem from our experience on what it takes to be safe btw), but indulge in them yourselves about women, guess what? YOU ARE the problem.
Now frankly I am never going to go to a live Con, and while these comments are NOT the reason, they suggest my fears are not overblown. See I get the double whammy, I am female, and age doesn't protect me. I also have epilepsy, and high stress situations are more likely to produce seizures. If I have a seizure all your great advice here about video'ing assailants goes right out the window, I am unconscious or semi-conscious and helpless for an extended period. And before you say geez that is a medical emergency, no guy would harm a woman under those conditions? Wrong, I have come out of seizures to find some guys hand down the front of my shirt or pants, and if I say something? "Oh honey he was just trying to do first aid, you are not in your right mind, clearly you misunderstood." If I could invite you to the epilepsy support sites, and I can't they are all locked to membership only because of internet trolls, you could hear many stories of women and men being assaulted or robbed during a seizure. And we can't complain because we were unconscious or semi-conscious, therefore not a reliable witness. These kinds of incidents are why I only game online, and yeah I have had seizures during games even then, at tables with bullies who run unchecked because they are "friends" of the GM. My complaints to the GM were useless, and I eventually ended an 8 year friendship over the BS.
So any of you ever heard the jokes about seizure sex? They have been used in prime time TV shows, the one about the Boston lawyers was one we discussed specifically. (By the way, if you hear. laugh and repeat such jokes, you ARE the problem).
Now I want to add a few things for Afrodyte's list, based on things I have actually experienced gaming, with "decent" guys.
Have you or any of your friends at your table ever referred to their own young teenage daughter as bitches(I have heard this twice at tables, and two different men). If you are this disrespectful of your own daughter I am not going to believe you would treat any woman with respect.
Ever said to a woman eating in public "gee I like how you eat that banana" (or some other phallic shaped food). This is definitely creepy and why I don't eat such foods in public anymore. And it is a COMMON comment.
So while we women change the way we dress, where we go, what we eat, say, think to protect you guys and ourselves from your seeming claimed inability to control your own behavior , and you sit here whinging about even the most minor changes to protect us? GTFU.
Some of you are essentially whining about the need to take precautions women have ALWAYS been required to take.


----------



## Afrodyte

Just an FYI,  [MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION], I didn't make list. That came pages before I joined the thread. I'm the one asking for names, addresses, social security numbers and recent and clear photographs. Just in case.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> Just an FYI,  [MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION], I didn't make list. That came pages before I joined the thread. I'm the one asking for names, addresses, social security numbers and recent and clear photographs. Just in case.




I stand corrected and thank you. I have been following and commenting on here for several days and after a while some of the mind numbing repetition of the same excuses jumbles stuff together. There are very few women commenting here it should be easier to remember which is which. I think there are a few here who wish we would just shut up, which is pretty much why I DON'T.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Eltab said:


> You just aren't heading anywhere near that direction with your post; you're raising hackles instead.



As others have said, I posted a bunch of red flag behaviors that were meant to cause self-reflection on the part of anyone reading them. Guess what self-reflection isn't always easy, but it can lead to reevaluating your future choices, growth, and in extreme cases empathy.

Hell, I'm guilty of doing some of the things on that list in the past. In my youth, I was a card carrying Republican and saw myself as a feminist. Then through life experience and getting to know people who were different from me, I started seeing patterns that didn't jive with the most basic goal of feminism. Feminism really boils down to a single ask: Can we treat all people as people? 

A guy goes into a bar and gets punched, assuming the police get involved, no one is going to ask him what he was wearing? Did he actually want to get punched and is now regretting it? Why was he at the bar alone in the bar after dark in the first place? Was he signally non-verbally that he wanted to get punched?

A girl goes into a bar and her drink get spiked. She wakes up the next morning not knowing what happened, but call the police saying she thinks she was drugged and had sex without her consent. Every one of those questions is going to come up at the trial. I've sat in the jury box and watched this happen. Along with exactly how much did you have to drink? Do you drink often? Have you ever gone home with someone else after a night at the bar? Do you regularly have sex with people you just met? How do you know you were drugged?

Her sex life and every choice she made up to that point is on trial, forget assuming that she's an adult that may be able to reason and make her own choices. If her past choices put her in a compromised situation, then many would argue it is her fault. Let me repeat that - If a woman is raped, but her past choices put her in what society deems to be a compromising situation, there is a portion of the population that would say it is her own fault for being raped. More often than not in a case of sexual assault (of which rape is only one kind), it is the woman who is put on trial to prove that she didn't instigate her own assault. Tell me why any woman would want to do through that after being assaulted? Who is guilty until proven innocent?


----------



## Particle_Man

I heard some “advice” that I could not tell if serious or not. It said that if a woman is raped she should accuse the rapist of indecent exposure instead as it is far more likely to result in a conviction and won’t put her through as much crap. That was some time ago so maybe things are different now.


----------



## Rygar

Jeanneliza said:


> Well here we are day 5 or 6 and still the discussion carries on despite some clear efforts to either derail it or get the thread shut down.
> Those of you complaining about Afrodyte's list need to check yourselves. What she listed are in fact what in therapeutic circles are called "red flags". Simply the earliest indicators of potentially harassive or abusive behavior. A red flag is merely a warning to be alert, in themselves they are not actual harassment, but the next steps, escalations likely are. It is one of those protective measures we women again, are taught from the time we are able to talk to keep ourselves safe. And I agree with her on this, too many here on this thread have been flying red flags right and left while simultaneously making it clear they are less likely to believe a woman who makes a complaint than a man is guilty even after he admits it.
> I have seen more than a few react to her post as if she is accusing all men. wah wah wah, meantime 6 days of hearing guys suggest ALL women are potentially liars intent on ruining some poor innocent guys life, based on theoreticals, while we cite actual cases that are all ready happening. If you guys hate generalizations so much from women(generalizations that stem from our experience on what it takes to be safe btw), but indulge in them yourselves about women, guess what? YOU ARE the problem.
> Now frankly I am never going to go to a live Con, and while these comments are NOT the reason, they suggest my fears are not overblown. See I get the double whammy, I am female, and age doesn't protect me. I also have epilepsy, and high stress situations are more likely to produce seizures. If I have a seizure all your great advice here about video'ing assailants goes right out the window, I am unconscious or semi-conscious and helpless for an extended period. And before you say geez that is a medical emergency, no guy would harm a woman under those conditions? Wrong, I have come out of seizures to find some guys hand down the front of my shirt or pants, and if I say something? "Oh honey he was just trying to do first aid, you are not in your right mind, clearly you misunderstood." If I could invite you to the epilepsy support sites, and I can't they are all locked to membership only because of internet trolls, you could hear many stories of women and men being assaulted or robbed during a seizure. And we can't complain because we were unconscious or semi-conscious, therefore not a reliable witness. These kinds of incidents are why I only game online, and yeah I have had seizures during games even then, at tables with bullies who run unchecked because they are "friends" of the GM. My complaints to the GM were useless, and I eventually ended an 8 year friendship over the BS.
> So any of you ever heard the jokes about seizure sex? They have been used in prime time TV shows, the one about the Boston lawyers was one we discussed specifically. (By the way, if you hear. laugh and repeat such jokes, you ARE the problem).
> Now I want to add a few things for Afrodyte's list, based on things I have actually experienced gaming, with "decent" guys.
> Have you or any of your friends at your table ever referred to their own young teenage daughter as bitches(I have heard this twice at tables, and two different men). If you are this disrespectful of your own daughter I am not going to believe you would treat any woman with respect.
> Ever said to a woman eating in public "gee I like how you eat that banana" (or some other phallic shaped food). This is definitely creepy and why I don't eat such foods in public anymore. And it is a COMMON comment.
> So while we women change the way we dress, where we go, what we eat, say, think to protect you guys and ourselves from your seeming claimed inability to control your own behavior , and you sit here whinging about even the most minor changes to protect us? GTFU.
> Some of you are essentially whining about the need to take precautions women have ALWAYS been required to take.




Just a point of clarification, the two lists are of Micro-aggressions, not red flags.  Medicine doesn't recognize any of those lists as "Therapeutic red flags" and none of them are considered harassment in legal terms.  I'm not protesting them being discussed, just pointing out that what is being discussed is politics.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Rygar said:


> Just a point of clarification, the two lists are of Micro-aggressions, not red flags.  Medicine doesn't recognize any of those lists as "Therapeutic red flags" and none of them are considered harassment in legal terms.  I'm not protesting them being discussed, just pointing out that what is being discussed is politics.




When choosing who I interact with, constant microaggressions are a something I view as a red flag. They may not meet a medical standard, but since I have to be aware of my surroundings in order to protect myself, I am not able to always let things get to the level of meeting a "standard" before I make a judgement call.

Edit to add a comma


----------



## Jeanneliza

Rygar said:


> Just a point of clarification, the two lists are of Micro-aggressions, not red flags.  Medicine doesn't recognize any of those lists as "Therapeutic red flags" and none of them are considered harassment in legal terms.  I'm not protesting them being discussed, just pointing out that what is being discussed is politics.




Times change, terms have changed, I have noted this before. I am not getting into semantics here, I am referring to the terms that were used in women's groups and women's therapists to help women who have all ready been victimized to identify behaviors that serve as early warning signs that this individual may be a problem. I don't care what you call them, back then or in the present, they serve the same purpose, so vulnerable groups can do as we are constantly advised, avoid potentially harmful situations/persons. Whatever they are called now, I recognized the list from back in the 80's and they were called red flags.
But this is again losing sight of the forest for the trees as it were. Many men on here have made it pretty clear that they perceive ALL women as potential threats to their reputations(false allegations) and are angry that women rebuff their overtures because of the currently "PC" climate that paints all men as potential dangers. The entire time thy are doing this they are literally waving red warning flags, and how the hell are they going to figure this out if no one tells them?
It also distracts from the statistical historical fact women have had to live a daily strategy to protect themselves and submit a much higher standard of proof than men who have been falsely accused of any crime or aggression against a woman needs to meet. The insistence that lowering the bar of proof puts them at risks, while ignoring the fact that failing to do so puts us at greater risk, should be a flag.


----------



## Catulle

I don't think it's particularly helpful to get caught up in the therapeutic settings thing - it's pretty clearly about assessing and managing risk to one's person.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Soooo...

(trying to use a wet paper bag to stop a runaway freight train)

Realizing that there are no panaceas; no magic bullets, what can be done?  More precisely, what _more_ can be done at cons and similar gatherings?

I’ve always thought such events- regardless of type- were kind of understaffed.  (Even when I was taking classes with the IAAM.). Modern venues are doing more with facial recognition and other electronic surveillance.  

If we want Las Vegas casino levels of security, how much more would we be willing to pay?


----------



## RedJenOSU

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Soooo...
> 
> (trying to use a wet paper bag to stop a runaway freight train)
> 
> Realizing that there are nompanaceas; no magic bullets, what can be done?  More precisely, what _more_ can be done at cons and similar gatherings?
> 
> I’ve always thought such events- regardless of type- were kind of understaffed.  (Even when I was taking classes with the IAAM.). Modern venues are doing more with facial recognition and other electronic surveillance.
> 
> If we want Las Vegas casino levels of security, how much more would we be willing to pay?



Honestly? Self-policing through positive peer pressure is one of the most impactful things that can be done. Having people who share the same or higher level of power/privilege point out poor behavior as it happens is a way to exert positive peer pressure. Saying something right after you witness bad behavior, like, "Dude, that (insert behavior here) is not cool/not tolerated here/offends me." It could be "Hey, I was hoping to talk with that person, but if you continue to scare the people I'm interested in away, I'm going to get a new wingman."

This is just being aware of your surroundings and taking an active part in making the environment more inclusive and it is free.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Clearly, but self-policing and “see something, say something” have been discussed and advocated for years- at least, here on ENWorld.  And yet, as this thread’s title implies, whatever progress as has been made is still...less than satisfactory.

You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans.  Trying to do so becomes increasingly expensive and impractical.  There’s even an economic concept called the “optimum level of crime”- the point at which spending on crime prevention is so prohibitably expensive that it makes far more sense to spend the money in other ways.

So it’s not A question, but a series:

1) what more can we do?
2) will it be effective?
3) will it be cost effective
4) will we be actually willing to pay for it?


----------



## Riley37

prosfilaes said:


> "Please tell me, what is your bra size?" That's a politely worded request. It's one that's clearly, massively inappropriate. In the right context, it could well be a nasty personal attack.




Three true statements, one after the other!

If you are running gaming cons, at which no man ever asks that question to a woman in a cosplay outfit: congratulations, you are running the kind of con Morrus wants to host. How did you accomplish this? Do you screen participants? Do you have them sign agreement to a Code of Conduct as part of registration? Did you also eliminate all *worse* behavior, such as leering and groping? How long did it take?

How do you deal with the men who argue "she should just slap him", and the men who argue "she should call the police; until he's convicted of a crime, we must assume that he's innocent and therefore we assume that his behavior meets con standards"? What response to those men, this thread, would be effective?

If you were establishing groundwork for some other argument, without actually stating it, and you are disappointed that I did not engage that implied argument; if you were counting on me to connect your dots - no. "All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism." If you make an argument, step by step, all the way from postulates to categories to conclusion, then I will address it, and FWIW I'll extend more good faith that I've seen from S'mon.

In the meantime, I sincerely do want to hear about cons at which no man ever asks a woman a question as invasive as her bra size. Heck, if you know how an *airport* can make such questions rare inside the secured zone, please share your techniques.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Clearly, but self-policing and “see something, say something” have been discussed and advocated for years- at least, here on ENWorld.  And yet, as this thread’s title implies, whatever progress as has been made is still...less than satisfactory.
> 
> You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans.  Trying to do so becomes increasingly expensive and impractical.  There’s even an economic concept called the “optimum level of crime”- the point at which spending on crime prevention is so prohibitably expensive that it makes far more sense to spend the money in other ways.
> 
> So it’s not A question, but a series:
> 
> 1) what more can we do?
> 2) will it be effective?
> 3) will it be cost effective
> 4) will we be actually willing to pay for it?



If I haven't ticked someone off before, here's where I'm going to do it.

If you aren't an active part of the solution, then you are part of the problem (silence/ignoring in almost every case is assumed to be consent/approval/condoning the behaviors that are labelled as wrong).

You can't assume because you are in a group of 20 people that someone else will step up and step in. You can't assume that since you all saw the harassing behavior, that someone else is reporting it. Make it easier to report. For example: Snap a pic of the person, send it with time, location and what you saw to the people in charge.

It is not enough to be a non-harassing male, you need to be a non-harassing male who actively looks for ways to make spaces safer AND then acts upon that knowledge.

Many times in my life I've acted out of ignorance. Once my ignorance was pointed out to me, it was up to ME to make the changes in my behavior.

So tell me, are you guys willing to pay that price?


----------



## Jeanneliza

RedJenOSU said:


> If I haven't ticked someone off before, here's where I'm going to do it.
> 
> If you aren't an active part of the solution, then you are part of the problem (silence/ignoring in almost every case is assumed to be consent/approval/condoning the behaviors that are labelled as wrong).
> 
> You can't assume because you are in a group of 20 people that someone else will step up and step in. You can't assume that since you all saw the harassing behavior, that someone else is reporting it. Make it easier to report. For example: Snap a pic of the person, send it with time, location and what you saw to the people in charge.
> 
> It is not enough to be a non-harassing male, you need to be a non-harassing male who actively looks for ways to make spaces safer AND then acts upon that knowledge.
> 
> Many times in my life I've acted out of ignorance. Once my ignorance was pointed out to me, it was up to ME to make the changes in my behavior.
> 
> So tell me, are you guys willing to pay that price?




An excellent summation, as well as the comment on self-policing. This is exactly what we have been doing for centuries, self-policing, our clothes, our facial expressions, our words, our choices about where we go and when, who we go with. I don't think it is too much to ask those who say they want to include us to share the burden. 
It is largely about awareness and empathy, I can tell from how a person sounds if they are uncomfortable or stressed, faces give away even more. If you truly want to be inclusive, but expect us to bear the entire burden for our own safety and comfort you have sent a mixed message. You are NOT being inclusive, you are being self-congratulating over paying lip service to inclusion.
It is simple as the difference of saying "We allow women in our games". Allowing us doesn't mean we are either welcome or wanted and we know it. Sad to many don't see that simple bit of wording as problematical.


----------



## Hussar

Rygar said:


> Just a point of clarification, the two lists are of Micro-aggressions, not red flags.  Medicine doesn't recognize any of those lists as "Therapeutic red flags" and none of them are considered harassment in legal terms.  I'm not protesting them being discussed, just pointing out that what is being discussed is politics.




Whoosh!  That's the sound of a point sailing over someone's head.  Good grief, you want to argue SEMANTICS?

[video=youtube_share;hou0lU8WMgo]https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo[/video]


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans.




If Skynet hosted cons for Terminator fans, the incidence of sexual harassment might be remarkably low.

Then again, there's a scene in "Terminator 3", in which the T-X in apparently internalizes male-gaze-driven body norms; it spots a billboard with a model wearing a bra, and shifts more of its mass into its bosom.

That said, I've served on staff team for events which established significantly higher standards of behavior than the USA societal baseline. We accomplished this largely by putting a code of conduct on the registration form. People who didn't want to commit, with their signature, to high standards, self-selected themselves out of our participant pool. Pick up artists (and wannabes) could tell, just from the reg form, that running game at our events would be an uphill effort, and they have easier fields to harvest, so they went elsewhere.

Enforcement was still an ongoing effort, because some men delude themselves about whether their behavior met the standards to which they had agreed. Enforcement was, however, not hampered by push-back from third parties, because the vast majority of participants had an active preference for a harassment-free event. If a regular brought a friend, and that friend overstepped, then the regular understood that their role was not to shield their friend from consequences, but to prevent their friend from doing further harm.


----------



## Riley37

RedJenOSU said:


> If I haven't ticked someone off before, here's where I'm going to do it.




You already ticked someone off. "He'll live."



RedJenOSU said:


> You can't assume because you are in a group of 20 people that someone else will step up and step in. You can't assume that since you all saw the harassing behavior, that someone else is reporting it. Make it easier to report. For example: Snap a pic of the person, send it with time, location and what you saw to the people in charge.
> 
> It is not enough to be a non-harassing male, you need to be a non-harassing male who actively looks for ways to make spaces safer AND then acts upon that knowledge.




Kitty Genovese would agree with you; so would Walter Kovacs, also known as "Rorchach".

Our role includes noticing and reporting "missing stairs". If an apartment has a staircase, and one of the stairs is missing, and the landlord never gets around to fixing that stair, then long-term residents warn their guests that one of the stairs is missing, and advise anyone traversing that staircase to step over the missing stair. Similarly, some communities handle known recurrent predators by warning their friends to avoid being alone with that person. This tends to fail spectacularly when some newcomer doesn't get the memo; but in the meantime, it makes the community less welcoming to the predator's targets, even if he never actually gets one of them alone. It is inconvenient and frustrating to contact the landlord, time after time, about the broken stair. It is also the right thing to do.

My friendly local game store had a drop-in Monday night D&D group. I played, once. One of the regular players had the overt goal of his character (a Life cleric) impregnating as many NPCs as possible. He handled this in a way which even he described as "rapey". My paladin PC objected; my PC did not change the events in the story, but as player, I had chosen something other than "shrug and accept this as normal". Afterwards, I told the DM that I loved most of his game, but the cleric was a deal-breaker. This was less convenient than just deciding not to come back; it was worthwhile.

So that's something I've done, not at a con but with dynamics similar to a con, and I expect to do so again, as need arises, at cons and elsewhere.


----------



## Morrus

Riley37 said:


> Three true statements, one after the other!
> 
> If you are running gaming cons, at which no man ever asks that question to a woman in a cosplay outfit: congratulations, you are running the kind of con Morrus wants to host.




To clarify, I’ve never hosted a con.


----------



## Sunseeker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Clearly, but self-policing and “see something, say something” have been discussed and advocated for years- at least, here on ENWorld.  And yet, as this thread’s title implies, whatever progress as has been made is still...less than satisfactory.



But it is _better_.  You can demand the moon and the stars all you like, and in some cases you should.  But you should also keep in mind that while obtaining the moon and the stars is your goal, you should recognize progress where it happens.  

The fact that more needs to be done isn't also to say that nothing has been done.  We should _always_ be trying to do better.  



> You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans.  Trying to do so becomes increasingly expensive and impractical.  There’s even an economic concept called the “optimum level of crime”- the point at which spending on crime prevention is so prohibitably expensive that it makes far more sense to spend the money in other ways.



This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion.  But to an extent, we _are_ trying to eliminate humans.  Sounds cold but it's not false.  We're trying to eliminate problem humans from situations where they would cause problems, until such times that they either cease being problem humans or they cease trying to enter these situations.  That's really what laws and increasing social awareness are all about: removing bad humans.



> So it’s not A question, but a series:
> 
> 1) what more can we do?
> 2) will it be effective?
> 3) will it be cost effective
> 4) will we be actually willing to pay for it?



1: The same thing we've been doing.  Codify what is unacceptable.  Ensure there is both top-down (policing) and bottom-up (social awareness) enforcement.  I mean really _what _we're doing hasn't changed since we started doing it.  It's just become more focused and more wide-spread.
2: There will be ups and downs I'm sure, but judging from history that we have generally become _more effective_ over time, then yes, it will.
3: Bad actors are always _few_.  Mathematically speaking, there are more people who _could_ join the hobby than the bad actors we will lose, yes, even including the few innocents potentially caught in the crossfire.  
4: Via increased con costs and and increased requirement on con-goers to be more aware of their surroundings, actions and those of others?
-That depends.  One of these costs is cash.  Some people have a lot of that.  The other of these costs is awareness, some people have a lot of that.  Some people have very little of one and an abundance of the other.  Some people have an abundance of both.  At the end of the day, the latter is going to be a cost we all MUST pay if we want to keep our hobby moving forward.  If we can raise the overall level of awareness, we can reduce the potential increase in cost.  If we cannot, then we're going to have to pay more out-of-pocket for someone else to beat the awareness into us.

That's just how the cookie crumbles.  Because the potential cost of doing _neither_ is a reduction in market penetration (as vulnerable groups and those already aware move away from the hobby) which will result in a loss of profits and we all know how companies like Hasbro react when D&D starts losing money.


----------



## Riley37

Jeanneliza said:


> It is largely about awareness and empathy, I can tell from how a person sounds if they are uncomfortable or stressed, faces give away even more.




Some people have a hard time telling red from green. Most of those people are men. People with red-green color blindness learn whether the light means GO or STOP by its location (top or bottom of the traffic signal) rather than its color. They are still responsible for stopping at red lights, if they drive a car on a public road. (Taking a bus or taxi is a valid alternative.) I do not shame people for having color-blindness; I also don't have much tolerance for avoidable traffic accidents.

Some people have a hard time reading faces and voices. People with autism and related disabilities get a pass (from me, at least) on whether they can read faces; but that is not a FREE PASS for misbehavior, and there are alternate strategies such as asking a friend to help with social cues. I won't shame anyone for autism, nor for being a rookie at advanced social dynamics, but I also don't have much tolerance for the con equivalent of avoidable traffic accidents.

For some of us, giving up on romantic pursuits, for the duration of the con, might be the moral equivalent of "I can't respond properly to traffic signals, so instead of driving, I'll get a ride, take a taxi, or take a bus."


----------



## Riley37

Morrus said:


> To clarify, I’ve never hosted a con.




So noted.

In the theoretical event that you're ever on staff for a con, would you want intrusive questions about bra size to be rare or even absent from the con? 

Prosfilaes went out of his way to explain to me that such questions are inappropriate. If he's speaking from the experience of attending (or running) cons where such questions are the worst misbehavior that ever happens, then I'm interested in learning what methods have had that result!

If he's pursuing some other angle, though, then you might prefer to leave it to him and me. We shall see.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Riley37 said:


> Some people have a hard time telling red from green. Most of those people are men. People with red-green color blindness learn whether the light means GO or STOP by its location (top or bottom of the traffic signal) rather than its color. They are still responsible for stopping at red lights, if they drive a car on a public road. (Taking a bus or taxi is a valid alternative.) I do not shame people for having color-blindness; I also don't have much tolerance for avoidable traffic accidents.
> 
> Some people have a hard time reading faces and voices. People with autism and related disabilities get a pass (from me, at least) on whether they can read faces; but that is not a FREE PASS for misbehavior, and there are alternate strategies such as asking a friend to help with social cues. I won't shame anyone for autism, nor for being a rookie at advanced social dynamics, but I also don't have much tolerance for the con equivalent of avoidable traffic accidents.
> 
> For some of us, giving up on romantic pursuits, for the duration of the con, might be the moral equivalent of "I can't respond properly to traffic signals, so instead of driving, I'll get a ride, take a taxi, or take a bus."




And persons with autism are also one of the vulnerable groups more likely to be subjected to harassment. Those two grandsons I mention? Yeah the 21 year old has autism, his 24 year old brother struggles with severe mental illness, and even then they have more sensitivity and awareness than so called normal people. People with disabilities are 3 times as likely to be abused as even women. My grandson is painfully aware of his own limitations, others have made fun of him and bullied him over them.
I also show them comments in threads like this, interesting, they have no trouble spotting the bad actors, it may help I reiterate "This is not the way to talk to or about people."
Neither one of the would ever be likely to attend a gaming con, though they have gone to one of the smaller Comic Cons, they share a passion for all things Marvel. But I can't even get them to play with my online groups "too peopley" or far to anxiety inducing.
It is because of these two young men in fact that I am aware of some of these fears men have on a level I won't address here at all, because that diverts from the much bigger problem across society, and it isn't related to gaming.


----------



## Advilaar

There are types of conventions where you have little, if any harassment. Not sure it would be a lot of people's cup of tea.

They make a distinction between the professionals and the amateurs.

They also have just basic blanket rules of conduct like the pic of the GenCon deal in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. No forms in triplicate but a simple 5 to 7 rule policy that they make simple to enforce and covers all the bases that you agree to by accepting a visitor badge or vendor/VIP/speaker badge.

The floor of these trade shows are business environments. No cosplay is allowed, as per business dress codes, unless you have a booth and are a purveyor of cosplay clothing or unless you are paid to do this. While you are there, you are either there to buy merchandise, try products, network for a job, or attend seminars to network with other amateurs and professionals. Product demonstrations are only allowed to be run if sanctioned by the company itself and the company pays for the space. No one is allowed to just set up a table and do anything unless they have such a booth and are affiliated with that company.

There are still SOME night events and parties. Maybe a dance or a costume contest. But, there is no alcohol allowed  there. It ends early and they watch people like hawks. You are there for networking and stuff, after all.

The open room parties are not sponsored by the convention in any private hotel room. This is strongly disallowed/discouraged and earns you an eviction from the hotel if there is even so much a peep. If a company or individual, however, wants to have a party that THEY arrange, of course they can at their own expense  at an outside facility or rent out a small banquet room where it is on the company or individual or hotel, not the convention organizers.

Of course, if you do agree to go to go to someone you do not know's private hotel room, what happens after is not on the convention if you do wish to hook up with someone consentually.

This would probably appeal to some and there is a place for such things. It would also be pretty lame to a lot of others.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion.




I gather, from the cumulative points of many posts, that what you want at cons and what DannyAlcatraz wants at cons (and what I want and Morrus wants), is largely a shared goal: less harassment, and more inclusivity for more people, not just for cis het dudes.

In this particular passage, however, you are misrepresenting what DannyAlcatraz said. DA didn't extend from the objective, testable, verifiable observation which he made, into the "so therefore don't bother" conclusion which you attribute to him.

Others have made the leap from the observation to the conclusion. That's not his fault, so don't lump him with them. His point about optimum, immediately following, establishes clearly that he understands trade-offs, partial successes, and imperfect-but-worthwhile outcomes.

After that, I enjoyed your answers to his questions. I especially appreciate the point about cash and awareness as resources which each of us brings in different amounts.

I would add, if you'll accept it as a friendly amendment, the resource of "willingness to live with discomfort". For example, some of us felt and expressed discomfort at the invitation to review our past behaviors against a check-list. Of those who experienced discomfort, some threw a tantrum while others moderated their response.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion.




I’m afraid you’ve misread that section, because that is not what it is about *at all*.

The optimum level of crime isn’t an assertion making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Rather, it is an assertion that- even if perfection is attainable- its cost may be so high as to be detrimental to society as a whole.

To illustrate in a silly but clear way, let’s say it costs $N to catch 50% or the people who perpetrate the crime of “Glagtery”.  To catch 50% of the remaining glagterers it costs $(NxN).  To catch 50% of the glagterers not caught in the first two rounds of law enforcement expenditures, it costs $(NxNxNxN)x5.

But glagterers are still out there...

Some government analysts figure out they can eradicate glagtery as they know it, but it’s going to cost 80% of the country’s annual budget, in part because the solution requires all residents (citizens and noncitizens alike) to submit to 24/7 electronic monitoring by the world’s most powerful AI.

OTOH, they could spend somewhat less than that, feed 90% of their hungry, house 75% of their homeless, have a strong defense plan, and not bother with invading people’s life with BIG BRO.

At some point, the correct economic decision is to decide that there are greater ills in the world than eradicating glagtery.  The people don’t have to change their opinion of glagtery, but they’ll accept a little of it occurring because they see more benefit in spending that money elsewhere.  And nobody gets a chip in their neck. 

Whatever point society decides they've spent enough money and compromised enough civil liberties to combat glagtery and shifts focuse elsewhere, that would be their “optimum level” of glagtery.


----------



## Rygar

Hussar said:


> Whoosh!  That's the sound of a point sailing over someone's head.  Good grief, you want to argue SEMANTICS?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hou0lU8WMgo]https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo[/video]




You're right, that point did sail over someone's head.  There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group.  If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine.  In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.

Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.

OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon. 

So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> I gather, from the cumulative points of many posts, that what you want at cons and what DannyAlcatraz wants at cons (and what I want and Morrus wants), is largely a shared goal: less harassment, and more inclusivity for more people, not just for cis het dudes.
> 
> In this particular passage, however, you are misrepresenting what DannyAlcatraz said. DA didn't extend from the objective, testable, verifiable observation which he made, into the "so therefore don't bother" conclusion which you attribute to him.
> 
> Others have made the leap from the observation to the conclusion. That's not his fault, so don't lump him with them. His point about optimum, immediately following, establishes clearly that he understands trade-offs, partial successes, and imperfect-but-worthwhile outcomes.



Maybe, but that's why I used the word _implies_.  I'm fairly Hobbesian in my approach to humanity.  Without strong social order I generally see humanity as crappy.  But where I disagree is that bad behaviour is part and parcel with humanity.  It is...without any form of social pressure to change.  Meaning it doesn't _have_ to be.  We _can_ eliminate bad behaviour without eliminating humans, it just requires a certain amount of social pressure to force change.  It's probably true that some people _can't_ or _won't_ change.  In which case, as cold as it may sound, the answer _is_ elimination.  Not in a creepy authoritarian death-camp sense, but in a "exclusion from society" sense.  Maybe it starts with excluding the individuals from cons.  Maybe that spreads to same-industry businesses.  Which then moves on to similar positions in other industries.  Eventually that person is "eliminated" in a social sense, so unable to participate in any venue of society without changing that they either MUST change, or they must leave the society totally.  



> After that, I enjoyed your answers to his questions. I especially appreciate the point about cash and awareness as resources which each of us brings in different amounts.
> 
> I would add, if you'll accept it as a friendly amendment, the resource of "willingness to live with discomfort". For example, some of us felt and expressed discomfort at the invitation to review our past behaviors against a check-list. Of those who experienced discomfort, some threw a tantrum while others moderated their response.



Raising social awareness can cause discomfort, this discomfort is usually temporary.  Such as someone admitting they made rape jokes or talked to a woman's cleavage.  

EX: I game with a girl who is rather well-endowed, today was quite warm, and she had a rather low-cut shirt on.  Every time I got "distracted" I remembered this thread and inwardly smacked myself and forced myself to make eye contact.  Sure, it was uncomfortable, but it was the right thing to do.  It's better for me to feel uncomfortable because I'm doing something inappropriate, and change my behaviour, than is for me to let my behaviour pass and make her feel uncomfortable.

I don't like the idea of "willingness to live with discomfort" as a measure because it's rather unclear of what it's measuring and it has the potential to be gendered.  I don't want women with a high tolerance for  men to be "willing to live with lots of discomfort", and I don't want men to look at it as "I'm willing to live with making someone else uncomfortable."  Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate from others?  Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate themselves?  Is it a measure of how willing I am to change my behaviour for the benefit of others?  I don't have a good answer for that, and it starts delving into personal definitions of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", and that's why I think it's a poor measure.


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But glagterers are still out there...




LEGALIZE GLAGTERY!

The mission of GlagterCon isn't to obey the law as it exists; it's to work towards the day when any three consenting adults can engage in glagtery, without legal consequences, without fear, without stigma. So yeah, the con staff turn a blind eye to glagtery, and maintain plausible denial as necessary. We avoid involving the police because so far as we're concerned, the focus of the con should not be their business in the first place.

Since we can't rely on *legal* standards of appropriate and inappropriate, we instead maintain a culture of informed, previous, mutual consent, and we "clean house" as needed, with zero tolerance for repeat offenses. Harass any other participant at GlagterCon, and you won't be welcome next year. Don't let the door hit you where the Great Glagter split you. If your local glagter community hears about your behavior at the con, and no one wants to play with you any more, then that's because *choices have consequences*. Good luck practicing glagtery on your own.


----------



## DM Magic

Rygar said:


> You're right, that point did sail over someone's head.  There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group.  If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine.  In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.
> 
> Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.
> 
> OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.
> 
> So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?




Remember that scene in 30 Rock where Liz Lemon gives the most over-the-top eye roll? Yeah, I thought that was hilarious too.


----------



## Particle_Man

Rygar said:


> You're right, that point did sail over someone's head.  There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group.  If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine.  In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.
> 
> Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.
> 
> OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.
> 
> So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?




Sure, it is the one where women come in with their money now that it is safe for them to be there.  

Oh, and I think your percentages are off. For one thing, you don’t take into account that some people will change bad behaviour rather than leave.


----------



## Afrodyte

Rygar said:


> You're right, that point did sail over someone's head.  There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group.  If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine.  In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.
> 
> Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.
> 
> OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.
> 
> So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?




Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recently taken photo of you?


----------



## DM Magic

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recently taken photo of you?




You are amazing.


----------



## Shasarak

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recently taken photo of you?




Yeah, and I want your Credit Card number, Expiry and Security Code.


----------



## prosfilaes

Deleted.


----------



## Afrodyte

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, and I want your Credit Card number, Expiry and Security Code.




I don't see how this would help the authorities in the event that I am assaulted or murdered at an event hosted by ENWorld (if such a thing happens).


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recently taken photo of you?




When you collect them would you mind keeping a general shareable file?
As I mentioned, I have only ever played RPG's online, with people I have met online, so I don't face the same level of danger in the hobby as I do in day to day life, and certainly I don't expect to ever experience what too many of my online gaming friends have told me of their live gaming experiences. But even online there are issues. I don't ask for pictures, ID etc. I DO keep an excel spreadsheet of everyone I have gamed with, every online nic I know them under, their real name if I know it, and where I know them from> This list is color coded. Red (as in flags) for those I will never sit at a table with because they are proven problems, yellow for those who are suspect for lesser reasons, such as who they are known to associate with (anyone on the red list) and green for those who time and experience meant I enjoy gaming with them and feel perfectly comfortable when I do so.
For those concerned about being put on some list by Cons? You may all ready be on somebody's list. One of those many, many things we must do to insure our own safety is keep such lists for our own use, whether mental or actually written down. And sometimes we share those lists, etc. And if a GM I play with asks me if a player they are considering is on the list I will tell them.
For the guy hung up on the word microagressions, dude, both the lists and my references to red flags were not speaking of freaking reportable offenses, let alone prosecutable. These are just the things WE watch for, and if you want to talk to girls, and not have them back away, brush you off or worse, perhaps you should be aware of them. That is ALL it is. So unless you are suggesting we have no right to keep defined lists of warning behaviors for our own protection, I have no clue what your issue is.


----------



## Shasarak

Afrodyte said:


> I don't see how this would help the authorities in the event that I am assaulted or murdered at an event hosted by ENWorld (if such a thing happens).




It couldnt hurt.


----------



## Afrodyte

Shasarak said:


> It couldnt hurt.




Nah. Women who come forward about harassment and assault are already accused of doing it for money and attention, so I'd rather not add fuel to that inevitable garbage fire.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

I confess I’ve been following this thread with a kind of morbid, horrified interest. I don’t go to cons – they always sounded dreadful, honestly, with too many unhygienic, insufficiently socialized, sexually frustrated boy-men.

This thread has done little to disabuse me of those notions.

I’m also aware that these sorts of conversations tend to become proxy battlefields for ideological wars. I think it’s been very well-moderated: at times, this one must have been a tight rope to walk. I’m glad the thread wasn’t locked; it’s an important conversation, which unfortunately needs to be repeated until it sinks in and patterns of bad behaviour end. 

Those of you who have decried the inevitable tyranny which would result from women’s voices being heard (and acted on) are reacting emotionally to a perceived loss of power. It is a wholly transparent reaction. It’s a _boring_ reaction. You might claim otherwise; I would just ask you to think harder about what you think, and why you think it.

Imagine for a moment that you have _never had power_. Try and make that empathetic leap. It is foundational to _making things better_.

And consider:

•	It is 2018
•	Male hegemony is _actually, really_ collapsing for the first time since the Neolithic Revolution
•	Sorry about that
•	There might be some bumps along the way, but you’re going to have to get over it
•	The arrow of history only points in one direction, here
•	In fifty years you’ll be dead, society will have moved on, and no-one will care what you thought. While you’re here, why not help make things _better_?


Cheers!


----------



## Riley37

DM Magic said:


> You are amazing.




Ranger.
Favored Enemy: Dudes Afraid that Women will Ruin Gaming.
Favored Terrain: Internet Threads.
Chosen maneuver: Horde Breaker.


----------



## Particle_Man

I literally levelled up due to XP from this thread.

Thanks!


----------



## Afrodyte

Riley37 said:


> Ranger.
> Favored Enemy: Dudes Afraid that Women will Ruin Gaming.
> Favored Terrain: Internet Threads.
> Chosen maneuver: Horde Breaker.




You forgot my fighting style!


----------



## Afrodyte

Jeanneliza said:


> When you collect them would you mind keeping a general shareable file?




We have to be careful if we do. We can't call it The List or anything like that. We'll have to name it correctly, like Hello Kitty Sparkle Pink Rainbow Sunshine Feelings or something similar, to dissuade those on said list from hacking it lest the very touch of it renders them into a non-person category like gay, trans or woman.


----------



## Riley37

Advilaar said:


> There are types of conventions where you have little, if any harassment. Not sure it would be a lot of people's cup of tea.




If there were a convention equally devoted to "we're here for a reason", and that reason was "let's play some high quality D&D" rather than business to business, that would suit me just fine.


----------



## Hussar

Rygar said:


> You're right, that point did sail over someone's head.  There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group.  If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine.  In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.
> 
> Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.
> 
> OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.
> 
> So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?




Wow.  There's missing the point, and then there's this.

Ok, let's recap shall we?  The point was raised that certain behaviors, while not in any way actually illegal, often serve as warning signs for potential bad behavior.  You leaped on this to proclaim that we want to criminalize all micro-agressions in an attempt to service some mythical "subset of a political group".

So, instead of simply recognizing that women have a fairly lengthy shopping list of behaviors that might serve as warning signs, and then possibly internalizing that list to make sure that you don't do these things, you immediately jump to the defense of poor, downtrodden right wing political groups.  

Like I said, whoosh, way, way overhead.


----------



## Advilaar

Riley37 said:


> If there were a convention equally devoted to "we're here for a reason", and that reason was "let's play some high quality D&D" rather than business to business, that would suit me just fine.




Actually a lot of the wargamer conventions are like that. You do not have cosplayers with their boobs hanging out. There is no santioned party scene unless one or two want to hang at a bar after. Most people are married and older, so they are over needing to find a mate who is also a gamer. They already have this, or at least a mate that is sympathetic. There are no room parties or getting drunk. Everybody is too tired for that stuff. There are no DM egos, because it is all one battle with set rules and very hard to rig towards favoritism.

The Sci-Fi cons and RPG cons have had a long history of being HUGE party and social scenes as well as being trade shows. Being dating and meeting mates is part of being social for a lot of people, it attracts people looking to meet mates and socialize. In the past, things got really raunchy. One con I used to go to in the 90s had something called "The Porno Patrol". They played porn in the room and served free strong booze everywhere. People making out, swingers, etc. I had to literally step over people making out in stair ways,  the rooms themselves, ect. 

I was not around, but have read stories of the cons in the 1980s and 1970s where they were even more off the walls than in the 90s to early 00s. Actual private orgies and such.

This reputation is appealing to lots of people, including predators.  These conventions sell sex - or the promise of.

And, I will not lie. I have "hooked up" with people at cons in my youth. I also know people that met their husband or wife at these places that are now celebrating 15 year anniversaries. I also know of people who would not take "no" for an answer and ended up getting curb stomped, ostracized, or in jail and ladies that got really hurt.

But.. it goes with the territory. When you have sex involved, it attracts those that are into it. Including creeps. Even regulated communities ALL ABOUT sex like the BDSM community has problems with creeps and predators sneaking in. They are attracted to it like a june bug to a porch light.

The only way to be rid of (most) of this is to decouple a con experience from the parties and the sex. That, unfortunately, means no cosplay dressing like a sexual object, no con sponsored room parties and booze, etc. It also means no gender identity politics, no politics, religions, etc. Those are not the answer and acrually make everything MUCH WORSE. There are already conventions for those that you are free to go to.

Unfortunately, these are the exact expectations that get A LOT of people willing to plop down big hotel money and fees to come to the cons. The sexually charged atmosphere.

Without that, the money from the party people, the money would cease to flow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I was not around, but have read stories of the cons in the 1980s and 1970s where they were even more off the walls than in the 90s to early 00s. Actual private orgies and such.




View attachment 97222


----------



## Riley37

Rygar said:


> So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions?  Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?




Oh, Rygar. I find your lack of faith in capitalism disturbing. You're ignoring free market solutions.

For example, if Company Alpha held conventions on a "boys will be boys" basis, while Company Beta held conventions on a "zero tolerance for misbehavior" basis, then the market could sort out the relative demand.

You could go to AlphaCon. You can say whatever you want, right up to the limit of the law, to any charming young woman in a Princess Daphne outfit; or perhaps just beyond the limit of the law, if a cop isn't around to enforce it. Eltab can encourage her to respond with physical violence. S'mon could talk to her cleavage. JackTheRabbit can run a game in which no one can tell which player is running which character, and by the end, no one's even sure that he's the DM. Prosfilaes can run an alternate history game in which the PCs crush the riot at the Bastille and thus avert the French Revolution, preventing many subsequent executions of aristocrats on charges of ideological impurity. (Also averting the metric system.) You can run a game in which the most dangerous spell is Power Word: Micro-Aggression.

Not my cup of tea, but everyone involved gets what they chose, and Alpha Company will harvest its profit.

Meanwhile, at BetaCon, AfroDyte can run a game in which the Rashemi queen wears vibranium armor decorated with the Seal of Solomon. DannyAlcatraz can judge the cosplays and none of them will be Confederate Army uniforms. When a player at Hussar's game tells him, that the person on their left has been copping a feel under the table, then Hussar can tell that person to change seats so they're non-adjacent to the complainer; no discussion, no "innocent until proven guilty!", just do it, right now, or GTFO his game. RedJenOSU will decline to enter an elevator, rather than be alone with Mouseferatu in that elevator, and rather than taking offense, he will smile and nod at her prudent caution. I won't invite anyone back to my hotel room for glagtery, or at least not on the first day I meet them; there are other venues for other parts of my life, and it takes three.

Not your cup of tea, but everyone involved gets what they chose, and Beta Company will harvest its profit.


----------



## Afrodyte

Advilaar said:


> But.. it goes with the territory. When you have sex involved, it attracts those that are into it. Including creeps. Even regulated communities ALL ABOUT sex like the BDSM community has problems with creeps and predators sneaking in. They are attracted to it like a june bug to a porch light.
> 
> The only way to be rid of (most) of this is to decouple a con experience from the parties and the sex. That, unfortunately, means no cosplay dressing like a sexual object, no con sponsored room parties and booze, etc. It also means no gender identity politics, no politics, religions, etc. Those are not the answer and acrually make everything MUCH WORSE. There are already conventions for those that you are free to go to.
> 
> Unfortunately, these are the exact expectations that get A LOT of people willing to plop down big hotel money and fees to come to the cons. The sexually charged atmosphere.
> 
> Without that, the money from the party people, the money would cease to flow.




Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recent picture of you, please?


----------



## Sadras

RedJenOSU said:


> I'm not calling anyone a bad guy, what I'm trying to do is let you know that some of the things that seem natural and everyday to many men aren't all that innocent to someone else. I'm asking you to be better than you've been before and keep trying to be better.




Given this list and the thinking behind it, I'm pretty sure everyone has offended someone at some point. To label the word harasser to someone guilty in offending someone else I find unhelpful. That would mean my wife harasses me. 
I leave the term harasser for something somewhat more serious.

I mean how difficult is it to not creep a person of the opposite sex to the point where she/he would label you an harasser? Yes it is very likely that given the social aspect of the event that some might try to make connections with others they find interesting/attractive in some way. That is normal human behaviour. One must just remember not to be a creep and respect the word no.

It seriously is not productive to throw that word (harasser) around for EVERYONE telling a non-politically correct joke.


----------



## Sadras

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The fact that you're treating that list of questions as an accusation, as a list of "harassing behaviors," when it was _clearly stated_ that it wasn't--but was, instead, merely a list of things that, if you've done, should inspire further self-reflection--is not helping your case.




and



RedJenOSU said:


> Before you say that you've never harassed someone in your life, please consider these questions ...(snip)...
> 
> If you are being honest and your answer is yes to any of those questions, then I would caution you against claiming to never have harassed anyone.




That seems like a pretty fine line of interpretation of what was said.



Mouseferatu said:


> Calling you a "potential harasser" isn't a personal attack. As far as she's concerned, you are. As far as she's concerned, so am I. So is any man she doesn't know well and trust.




 @_*Mouseferatu*_, what about calling a person which I don't know well and trust and practising a particular faith a potential terrorist? Would you consider that a personal attack?


----------



## Advilaar

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recent picture of you, please?




No, but I could give you a picture of my dog, Delphine AKA Dellie.

She definitely feels oppressed by the "patriarchy" when she does not get human food. She feels this is species-ist and definitely does not understand cis-species people as she identifies as human. How dare they classify her!

However, she still may end up on your list since she is a both a predator and a stalker. She kills more mice than most cats with dragon like efficiency. It could be said she is culturally appropriating from the cats. But the cats don't seem to mind.

She does, however, hang around  the marginalized and oppressed as her best friend is a pit bull, who also thinks he is a human.

I am afraid, though, they make bad gaming partners. The pit bull one time ate the gaming notes in a game I DM and a lack of a thumb means no D20 rolling anytime soon.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Sadras said:


> @_*Mouseferatu*_, what about calling a person which I don't know well and trust and practising a particular faith a potential terrorist? Would you consider that a personal attack?




Not even _remotely_ analogous. Both terrorists and victims of terrorism represent a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of any possible demographic you could name. And in most cultures, the society as a whole frowns on such things. (Plus, at least in the US, the group that people _think_ is most likely to produce terrorists actually isn't, whereas the group that most often makes that incorrect assumption _is_ statistically more likely to produce terrorists.)

Harassers represent a far larger proportion of men, and victims of harassment represent an _enormously_ larger proportion of women, and our society has, for most of its history, utterly dismissed the idea that harassment is even a problem.

Plus, most discussions of terrorism aren't filled with people trying to downplay the victims' experiences and defend the perpetrators as misunderstood or not as bad as people claim.

Look, if you want to take offense at women choosing to be careful, and not trusting men until the men give them a reason to trust, that's on you. Nobody can stop you. But in so doing, you are neither giving them any reason to believe differently, nor contributing to the effort to solve the problem.


----------



## Sadras

Mouseferatu said:


> Look, if you want to take offense at women choosing to be careful, and not trusting men until the men give them a reason to trust, that's on you. Nobody can stop you. But in so doing, you are neither giving them any reason to believe differently, nor contributing to the effort to solve the problem.




I have a wife that likes to run in the mornings and she runs with a group of friends but sometimes does it alone, not often thankfully. I do not like it and despite my best attempts to dissuade her from doing this (for safety reasons) this is what she likes, it is her hobby, her D&D. So yes I can understand the 'not trusting men' I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers. 
I really need to go to one of these conventions in the States to see that is it as bad as all this forum is making it out to be. I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> @_*Mouseferatu*_, what about calling a person which I don't know well and trust and practising a particular faith a potential terrorist? Would you consider that a personal attack?




OTOH, if you know that that person is doing a number of things that potentially might set off some alarm bells, SHOULDN'T you say something?  If that person is surfing sites to research how to make a pressure cooker bomb, makes comments that, while are in no way illegal, but, are somewhat alarming, and whatnot, isn't it your responsibility to step up here?

I mean, if we're drawing equivalencies here.  Unless, of course, you see belonging to a particular faith as a warning sign in and of itself, then, well, perhaps some self reflection might be in order.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Sadras said:


> I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers.




It's not a label. It's a scary truth women have to live with. "Lots of men are harassers, and many aspects of our society teach them that it's okay. I do not know this man. Therefore, he is _potentially_ a harasser."

(Note that word. "Potentially." They haven't labeled you anything, they merely don't know.)

"Labeling" implies that it's about you or me. It's not. It's not about us at all. It's about them not being safe. Instead of getting mad that they acknowledge they aren't safe--which is all considering strange men "potential harassers" is doing--let's focus on changing things so they are.


----------



## Afrodyte

Advilaar said:


> No, but I could give you a picture of my dog, Delphine AKA Dellie.
> 
> She definitely feels oppressed by the "patriarchy" when she does not get human food. She feels this is species-ist and definitely does not understand cis-species people as she identifies as human. How dare they classify her!
> 
> However, she still may end up on your list since she is a both a predator and a stalker. She kills more mice than most cats with dragon like efficiency. It could be said she is culturally appropriating from the cats. But the cats don't seem to mind.
> 
> She does, however, hang around  the marginalized and oppressed as her best friend is a pit bull, who also thinks he is a human.
> 
> I am afraid, though, they make bad gaming partners. The pit bull one time ate the gaming notes in a game I DM and a lack of a thumb means no D20 rolling anytime soon.




Is that a no?


----------



## Advilaar

Sadras said:


> I have a wife that likes to run in the mornings and she runs with a group of friends but sometimes does it alone, not often thankfully. I do not like it and despite my best attempts to dissuade her from doing this (for safety reasons) this is what she likes, it is her hobby, her D&D. So yes I can understand the 'not trusting men' I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers.
> I really need to go to one of these conventions in the States to see that is it as bad as all this forum is making it out to be. I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.




It's not.

If she avoids the drunk room parties too late and sticks to gaming, she would be okay except in rare circumstances. Like showing up to some company room party with what the article is about. But, see #1.

Most of the FUD is from four sources:

- real tales of jerk horny drunk dudes that pop up where singles congregate that do not understand the word no. These guys get tossed out, curb stomped, publicly embarrassed, or end up like Mr. Fannon. They are also relatively rare. We are not talking legitimate trying to hook up attempts  that are rebuffed and graciously accepted (SEE #2). These creatures are attracted to where any large amount of singles congregate. You can avoid them somewhat by not staying at the room parties to the end if you go OR not going at all. It is nerd science (and shady meat market bar science) that the ratio of creeps to normals increases as the night moves into morning. 

- misanthropes that think ANY attention from anyone is bad and exaggerate stuff. Typically have a long list of things that offend them, some of which may seem bizarre to the average D20 roller.  Fortunately, this creature rarely goes out. But when they do, they are sure FB, Twitter, Tumblr, and the forum boards hear how oppressive it was to get click bait.

- a small minority of upper middle class younger, sheltered cosplayers in several hundred dollar get ups half naked on the floor who get in a tizzy if someone mentions something - even a compliment - on their half nakedness.

- activists that want to move into an existing organization rather than forming their own with the goal of social engineering bringing their people in while marginalizing perceived opposing factions. Often through exaggerated media, unsourced attack pieces, and clickbait headlines. However, i would not worry too much about these people as they tend to turn on each other with infighting and as public attention shifts, they lose power since no one cares.

If you do not want this, as I said earlier. Eliminate cosplay, the drunken room parties, and make the con about play your game and leave.

However, not sure the people with money want that. People do come to these things to meet people, and some - even the ladies - to hook up. Many more don't care/ already have a partner/ whatever. Till then, just use common sense.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Advilaar said:


> No, but I could give you a picture of my dog, Delphine AKA Dellie.
> 
> She definitely feels oppressed by the "patriarchy" when she does not get human food. She feels this is species-ist and definitely does not understand cis-species people as she identifies as human. How dare they classify her!
> 
> However, she still may end up on your list since she is a both a predator and a stalker. She kills more mice than most cats with dragon like efficiency. It could be said she is culturally appropriating from the cats. But the cats don't seem to mind.
> 
> She does, however, hang around  the marginalized and oppressed as her best friend is a pit bull, who also thinks he is a human.
> 
> I am afraid, though, they make bad gaming partners. The pit bull one time ate the gaming notes in a game I DM and a lack of a thumb means no D20 rolling anytime soon.




I sense this was meant to be witty, but it's just...odd.  I gather from the language ("partriarchy", "cis", "identifies as", "marginalized and oppressed", "culturally appropriating", etc.) that the attempt here is to paint this discussion as just another facet of lefty nonsense.  

I'll admit I'm right there with you on some of those terms.  Some of those examples could be considered cases of progressives going too far (or perhaps too soon?). But given the sheer, staggering numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted, mostly by people they know, it seems obvious to me that this behavior is enabled by the jokes, ogling, entitlement, and objectification that essentially all men engage in.  I know.  We all know.  We are there and we witness it.  If you don't witness it you're either a) blind/oblivious, b) lying, or c) a friendless loser.  Basically all guys objectivity girls/women.  Some of them go on to harass.  And some of those go on to assault.

And that's why we need to be alert to and intolerant of the low-level harassing behaviors.  Yes, it's hard not to let your eyes be drawn to cleavage.  Recognize that when you do that some part of your brain is not thinking of the woman as a peer and an equal, and try to be a better man.

But going back to the above post, the dog analogy might be more useful for addressing another sub-topic in this thread: "potential" harassment.

All dogs are "potential biters".  Most are not, but if you are worried about getting bitten by dogs, then you should treat all dogs as _potential_ biters.

Some behaviors...growling, hackles, skittishness...are indicators that a dog is _more likely_ to be a biter.  It's not a 1:1 correlation, but again if you are playing it safe, those are good things to look out for.  Poorly trained/socialized dogs are the most likely to bite, but you can't tell a dog's history by looking at it, so you look for these signs.

If a dog bites you, and you weren't committing a crime against its owner, _it is the owner's fault_.  Always.  It doesn't matter if you were "asking for it" by trying to play with a strange dog, or walking too close, or acting like a gazelle, or rubbing fish oil on your privates.  Some people might ask, "Why the $%#^ did you do that?" and secretly blame the victim, but legally it is still the dog's...and therefore the owner's...fault.


----------



## Advilaar

Elfcrusher said:


> I sense this was meant to be witty, but it's just...odd.  I gather from the language ("partriarchy", "cis", "identifies as", "marginalized and oppressed", "culturally appropriating", etc.) that the attempt here is to paint this discussion as just another facet of lefty nonsense.
> 
> I'll admit I'm right there with you on some of those terms.  Some of those examples could be considered cases of progressives going too far (or perhaps too soon?). But given the sheer, staggering numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted, mostly by people they know, it seems obvious to me that this behavior is enabled by the jokes, ogling, entitlement, and objectification that essentially all men engage in.  I know.  We all know.  We are there and we witness it.  If you don't witness it you're either a) blind/oblivious, b) lying, or c) a friendless loser.  Basically all guys objectivity girls/women.  Some of them go on to harass.  And some of those go on to assault.
> 
> And that's why we need to be alert to and intolerant of the low-level harassing behaviors.  Yes, it's hard not to let your eyes be drawn to cleavage.  Recognize that when you do that some part of your brain is not thinking of the woman as a peer and an equal, and try to be a better man.
> 
> But going back to the above post, the dog analogy might be more useful for addressing another sub-topic in this thread: "potential" harassment.
> 
> All dogs are "potential biters".  Most are not, but if you are worried about getting bitten by dogs, then you should treat all dogs as _potential_ biters.
> 
> Some behaviors...growling, hackles, skittishness...are indicators that a dog is _more likely_ to be a biter.  It's not a 1:1 correlation, but again if you are playing it safe, those are good things to look out for.  Poorly trained/socialized dogs are the most likely to bite, but you can't tell a dog's history by looking at it, so you look for these signs.
> 
> If a dog bites you, and you weren't committing a crime against its owner, _it is the owner's fault_.  Always.  It doesn't matter if you were "asking for it" by trying to play with a strange dog, or walking too close, or acting like a gazelle, or rubbing fish oil on your privates.  Some people might ask, "Why the $%#^ did you do that?" and secretly blame the victim, but legally it is still the dog's...and therefore the owner's...fault.




EXACTLY....


----------



## Henry

The part that gets to me (that ALWAYS gets to me) is that the acts being described in these cases I can NEVER see myself doing, or never doing even with explicit permission of the parties concerned, even if I weren’t married. Showing pictures of myself or others engaged in sex acts? Engaging in hotel room hook-ups? Drunken groping or touching?

Yes, I’m older, married, and pretty conservative in my social activities; but even if I were single and looking for someone, I couldn’t see any of the behaviors described as OK. I’d have to know someone EXTREMELY well, the chemistry would have to be obvious, and God forbid I wouldn’t try to hook up with them at some lame-ass convention hotel room.  It’s just when I hear these stories, and the most frequent defense is, “they misinterpreted my actions,” I’m trying really hard to understand when someone got the idea that the action in question was OK in the context of a public venue in the first place.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Advilaar said:


> It's not.
> 
> If she avoids the drunk room parties too late and sticks to gaming, she would be okay except in rare circumstances. Like showing up to some company room party with what the article is about. But, see #1.
> 
> Most of the FUD is from four sources:
> 
> - real tales of jerk horny drunk dudes that pop up where singles congregate that do not understand the word no. These guys get tossed out, curb stomped, publicly embarrassed, or end up like Mr. Fannon. They are also relatively rare. We are not talking legitimate trying to hook up attempts  that are rebuffed and graciously accepted (SEE #2). These creatures are attracted to where any large amount of singles congregate. You can avoid them somewhat by not staying at the room parties to the end if you go OR not going at all. It is nerd science (and shady meat market bar science) that the ratio of creeps to normals increases as the night moves into morning.
> 
> - misanthropes that think ANY attention from anyone is bad and exaggerate stuff. Typically have a long list of things that offend them, some of which may seem bizarre to the average D20 roller.  Fortunately, this creature rarely goes out. But when they do, they are sure FB, Twitter, Tumblr, and the forum boards hear how oppressive it was to get click bait.
> 
> - a small minority of upper middle class younger, sheltered cosplayers in several hundred dollar get ups half naked on the floor who get in a tizzy if someone mentions something - even a compliment - on their half nakedness.
> 
> - activists that want to move into an existing organization rather than forming their own with the goal of social engineering bringing their people in while marginalizing perceived opposing factions. Often through exaggerated media, unsourced attack pieces, and clickbait headlines. However, i would not worry too much about these people as they tend to turn on each other with infighting and as public attention shifts, they lose power since no one cares.
> 
> If you do not want this, as I said earlier. Eliminate cosplay, the drunken room parties, and make the con about play your game and leave.
> 
> However, not sure the people with money want that. People do come to these things to meet people, and some - even the ladies - to hook up. Many more don't care/ already have a partner/ whatever. Till then, just use common sense.




Is the use of the word "lady", intended as a compliment, literally a 100.0% accurate indicator of misogyny?  Sometimes I think it might be.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> OTOH, if you know that that person is doing a number of things that potentially might set off some alarm bells, SHOULDN'T you say something?  If that person is surfing sites to research how to make a pressure cooker bomb, makes comments that, while are in no way illegal, but, are somewhat alarming, and whatnot, isn't it your responsibility to step up here?




Sure, but there is a massive difference between making a rape comment over a DotA/HoN game and researching how to make a pressure cooker bomb. I guess I got my back up because @_*S'mon*_ made a comment about repetitive behaviour and misinterpreted _talked to_ with _distracted by_  cleavage and somehow got 'outed' as an offender and everyone seemed ok with it.  

I mean you have your obvious trolls and sock-puppets and then you have those engaged in earnest discussion who might have points of disagreement with you*. The point is, do not treat everyone who disagrees with your as some troll/sock-puppet.

*You - the general you not you (Hussar) personally.


----------



## Advilaar

Elfcrusher said:


> Is the use of the word "lady", intended as a compliment, literally a 100.0% accurate indicator of misogyny?  Sometimes I think it might be.




I do not think they have changed the definition of that word YET. Though words are always changing. It sounds better than some other words.

People are funny though. What one person views as no big deal, the other views as a 40 dice meteor swarm towards their everything.

I say any person that would be offended by something so petty is not worth your time. I would leave their area immediately. If I was ambushed by a group of them, I'd run faster than a 5th level party from a adult blue dragon. Hopefully roll my stealth high enough while they get offended by other targets that taste better with ketchup.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Advilaar said:


> I do not think they have changed the definition of that word YET. Though words are always changing. It sounds better than some other words.
> 
> People are funny though. What one person views as no big deal, the other views as a 40 dice meteor swarm towards their everything.






Yeah, you are totally not getting this.

It's not that "lady" is...like some certain other words...an insulting/offensive word in itself.  And I'm not saying that people always use "lady" as an insult.  There are innocuous uses of the word (admittedly not many.)

It's that the use of lady as a compliment is indicative of the point of view of the speaker, and that point of view is rooted in misogyny and sexism because of the connotations it carries about how a "lady" should behave.

The protestation, "I'm not sexist!  I would do anything to protect ladies from harm!" sounds gallant and all but it implies that women _need you to protect them from harm_.  

What society really needs you to do is not talk about women in degrading ways in the locker room.  If more people did that, fewer "ladies" would need rescuing.



> I say any person that would be offended by something so petty is not worth your time. I would leave their area immediately. If I was ambushed by a group of them, I'd run faster than a 5th level party from a adult blue dragon. Hopefully roll my stealth high enough while they get offended by other targets that taste better with ketchup.




I would assert that, if you go around saying "lady", a fairly high % of the women you meet are offended, but choose not to say anything because they have been taught to, well, act like "ladies".


----------



## kenmarable

Advilaar said:


> There are types of conventions where you have little, if any harassment. Not sure it would be a lot of people's cup of tea.
> 
> They make a distinction between the professionals and the amateurs.
> 
> They also have just basic blanket rules of conduct like the pic of the GenCon deal in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. No forms in triplicate but a simple 5 to 7 rule policy that they make simple to enforce and covers all the bases that you agree to by accepting a visitor badge or vendor/VIP/speaker badge.
> 
> The floor of these trade shows are business environments. No cosplay is allowed, as per business dress codes, unless you have a booth and are a purveyor of cosplay clothing or unless you are paid to do this. While you are there, you are either there to buy merchandise, try products, network for a job, or attend seminars to network with other amateurs and professionals. Product demonstrations are only allowed to be run if sanctioned by the company itself and the company pays for the space. No one is allowed to just set up a table and do anything unless they have such a booth and are affiliated with that company.
> 
> There are still SOME night events and parties. Maybe a dance or a costume contest. But, there is no alcohol allowed  there. It ends early and they watch people like hawks. You are there for networking and stuff, after all.
> 
> The open room parties are not sponsored by the convention in any private hotel room. This is strongly disallowed/discouraged and earns you an eviction from the hotel if there is even so much a peep. If a company or individual, however, wants to have a party that THEY arrange, of course they can at their own expense  at an outside facility or rent out a small banquet room where it is on the company or individual or hotel, not the convention organizers.
> 
> Of course, if you do agree to go to go to someone you do not know's private hotel room, what happens after is not on the convention if you do wish to hook up with someone consentually.
> 
> This would probably appeal to some and there is a place for such things. It would also be pretty lame to a lot of others.




Any convention where there is no harassment, in my experience, either means:

A) They have aggressively worked against it, or

B) They have no *publicly reported* harassment (probably because "a simple 5 or 7 rule policy" isn't enough for a woman to feel comfortable reporting and have her situation taken seriously).

Sexual harassment happens in professional environments all the time. *ALL OF THEM.* Get a couple hundred people together for a weekend, and, sadly, there's almost a guarantee that harassment will take place. Heck, even scientific conventions are another area that has been working very hard to crack down on rampant sexual harassment at their conventions in recent years. I'm pretty sure they aren't marketing their convention around cosplaying and orgies.



Advilaar said:


> You do not have cosplayers with their boobs hanging out.




Oh wait, I see who you are blaming here for harassment. Ug, never mind.


----------



## Guest 6801328

kenmarable said:


> Oh wait, I see who you are blaming here for harassment. Ug, never mind.




Exactly what I was thinking.  Blame women who aren't being "ladies", right?


----------



## Advilaar

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, you are totally not getting this.
> 
> It's not that "lady" is...like some certain other words...an insulting/offensive word in itself.  And I'm not saying that people always use "lady" as an insult.  There are innocuous uses of the word (admittedly not many.)
> 
> It's that the use of lady as a compliment is indicative of the point of view of the speaker, and that point of view is rooted in misogyny and sexism because of the connotations it carries about how a "lady" should behave.
> 
> The protestation, "I'm not sexist!  I would do anything to protect ladies from harm!" sounds gallant and all but it implies that women _need you to protect them from harm_.
> 
> What society really needs you to do is not talk about women in degrading ways in the locker room.  If more people did that, fewer "ladies" would need rescuing.




If you want to use degrading words, there are far better words that have no ambiguity whatsoever to them. The meanings of _those_ words are well known. 

Just "ladies" is fine until someone changes the dictionary. I mean, we would not want half the population offended by restroom signs? No? Course, people have the right to feel offended how they please. 

Now, as far as feeling the need to proclaim not being a sexist, my advice would be to leave any place that would question sexism or lack therof.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Henry said:


> The part that gets to me (that ALWAYS gets to me) is that the acts being described in these cases I can NEVER see myself doing, or never doing even with explicit permission of the parties concerned, even if I weren’t married. Showing pictures of myself or others engaged in sex acts? Engaging in hotel room hook-ups? Drunken groping or touching?
> 
> Yes, I’m older, married, and pretty conservative in my social activities; but even if I were single and looking for someone, I couldn’t see any of the behaviors described as OK. I’d have to know someone EXTREMELY well, the chemistry would have to be obvious, and God forbid I wouldn’t try to hook up with them at some lame-ass convention hotel room.  It’s just when I hear these stories, and the most frequent defense is, “they misinterpreted my actions,” I’m trying really hard to understand when someone got the idea that the action in question was OK in the context of a public venue in the first place.




This very much this, I would also add not even in a private context at a game table say.


----------



## RedJenOSU

shidaku said:


> I don't like the idea of "willingness to live with discomfort" as a measure because it's rather unclear of what it's measuring and it has the potential to be gendered.  I don't want women with a high tolerance for  men to be "willing to live with lots of discomfort", and I don't want men to look at it as "I'm willing to live with making someone else uncomfortable."  Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate from others?  Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate themselves?  Is it a measure of how willing I am to change my behaviour for the benefit of others?  I don't have a good answer for that, and it starts delving into personal definitions of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", and that's why I think it's a poor measure.



For the record, what I believe you are referring to as "willingness to live with discomfort" is personal discomfort. Women live with this state practically 100% of the time we move outside our homes, play online games, or engage in a hot button topic on the internet. I'm not kidding; even in this space, I had to consider whether or not it was worth the risk to engage. If you think Afrodyte is joking, please consider the backlash that happened during GamerGate.

From the standpoint of "I'm willing to make someone else uncomfortable." and wondering just how much women are willing to tolerate, we've been tolerating for the sake of getting along and being part of the RPG community to this point. Our tolerance is high, but we are tired, and we no longer believe the fairy tale that letting things pass for the sake of avoiding conflict will lead to improvement as more people are included. Society is changing and we now have some support to make our frustrations and fears heard. It remains to be seen if people will hear us, then try to continue with the status quo or work with us to define a new set of collectively supported social norms. 

As female gamer, I'm asking male gamers to voluntarily take on part of the personal discomfort burden that female gamers have been carrying alone.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> We have to be careful if we do. We can't call it The List or anything like that. We'll have to name it correctly, like Hello Kitty Sparkle Pink Rainbow Sunshine Feelings or something similar, to dissuade those on said list from hacking it lest the very touch of it renders them into a non-person category like gay, trans or woman.




Better yet, A Comparative Guide to Feminine Hygiene Products


----------



## RedJenOSU

Advilaar said:


> Actually a lot of the wargamer conventions are like that. *You do not have cosplayers with their boobs hanging out.*



The bolded... This type of statement implies that if something negative were to happen, the cosplayer instigated the approach with the magnetic power of their boobs.


----------



## Advilaar

kenmarable said:


> Any convention where there is no harassment, in my experience, either means:
> 
> A) They have aggressively worked against it, or
> 
> B) They have no *publicly reported* harassment (probably because "a simple 5 or 7 rule policy" isn't enough for a woman to feel comfortable reporting and have her situation taken seriously).
> 
> Sexual harassment happens in professional environments all the time. *ALL OF THEM.* Get a couple hundred people together for a weekend, and, sadly, there's almost a guarantee that harassment will take place. Heck, even scientific conventions are another area that has been working very hard to crack down on rampant sexual harassment at their conventions in recent years. I'm pretty sure they aren't marketing their convention around cosplaying and orgies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, I see who you are blaming here for harassment. Ug, never mind.




That is the reason you change the environment. It is much simpler than 

You get rid of the room parties, the booze, and have a sensible dress code you eliminate the environment which breeds the behavior you do not want. If someone actually DOES do something, you intervene like you would anyone doing anything at your event. You ask them nicely to leave. If they do not leave, you have security escort them out. If it is especially egregious, you permaban him and any company he may represent.

Realize that, unfortunately, whenever you have drunk, single people of both genders it also attracts men that look for prey. If they do not get it there, they go elsewhere. Even communities with sex as a theme, like BDSM or poly communities have issues with higher numbers of predators because they at least seem like places a predator would enjoy.

By eliminating the proper hunting grounds, the predators must seek better hunting grounds. Let those people deal with it. Much easier than massive social engineering projects (with some very Orwellian things coming from the fringes)

Win-Win. Games get played, no ideologies, no hooking up, no distraction, just games!


----------



## jasper

Afrodyte said:


> Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recent picture of you, please?



You first. That joke has gotten old.


----------



## kenmarable

jasper said:


> You first. That joke has gotten old.




I'm glad you consider her safety a joke.

I'm hoping to take my teenage daughters to their first convention this year. Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recent picture of you, please?


----------



## jasper

Sexual Harassment goes all ways people. female to male, male to female, male to male, female to female, higher rank to lower, lower rank to higher.
Sometimes what is someone’s joke it another harassment, aka depends on the receiver. 
Sometimes a joke is a harassment. 
I always take the report with a grain of salt and research both sides before I judge.  Harassment does not need to meet the legal requirement to be corrected.


----------



## Advilaar

RedJenOSU said:


> The bolded... This type of statement implies that if something negative were to happen, the cosplayer instigated the approach with the magnetic power of their boobs.




It is still the guy's fault if he does something inappropriate. Remember the first 3 letters of "assume". It makes that out of "u" and "me".

By removing that, you remove any even remote reason to view this person sexually. 

Most trade conventions do not let you go around scantily clad. Nor do they let you dress like that unless you are selling the outfits themselves - and only in your booth.


----------



## Afrodyte

jasper said:


> You first. That joke has gotten old.




Is the block button malfunctioning on your device? May I suggest contacting technical support?


----------



## jasper

kenmarable said:


> I'm glad you consider her safety a joke.
> 
> I'm hoping to take my teenage daughters to their first convention this year. Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recent picture of you, please?



The first time, second time, third time, that reply is serious and makes a point.  After that, it becomes a joke. No you can have my ssn because I know you will do illegal stuff with them. And you don't need the ssn to make a complaint to the con or law enforcement. So send me a picture of your family so if I do see at a con I can run away from a possible nutter family.


----------



## kenmarable

Advilaar said:


> That is the reason you change the environment. It is much simpler than
> 
> You get rid of the room parties, the booze, and have a sensible dress code you eliminate the environment which breeds the behavior you do not want. If someone actually DOES do something, you intervene like you would anyone doing anything at your event. You ask them nicely to leave. If they do not leave, you have security escort them out. If it is especially egregious, you permaban him and any company he may represent.
> 
> Realize that, unfortunately, whenever you have drunk, single people of both genders it also attracts men that look for prey. If they do not get it there, they go elsewhere. Even communities with sex as a theme, like BDSM or poly communities have issues with higher numbers of predators because they at least seem like places a predator would enjoy.
> 
> By eliminating the proper hunting grounds, the predators must seek better hunting grounds. Let those people deal with it. Much easier than massive social engineering projects (with some very Orwellian things coming from the fringes)
> 
> Win-Win. Games get played, no ideologies, no hooking up, no distraction, just games!




Did you read my post?

Conventions that don't have room parties still have harassment.

Conventions with sensible dress codes still have harassment.

*It is NOT because of room parties and lack of dress codes that harassment happens. It is from men being harassers.*

Alright, let's back up. 

Sexual harassment isn't just the vile Harvey Weinstein's of the world. The "predators" you mention. Yes, they exist, and need to be stopped. But do you think that's the extent of the problem? Eliminate the predators and women will feel safe? (Or as you say "the predators must seek better hunting grounds. Let those people deal with it." which I won't even touch because thinking that someone else being harassed or assaulted rather than you is an actual solution to the problem is some cold-hearted, unproductive thinking.)

Anyway, do you think these predators are the extent of the problem? Sorry, but they aren't.

The majority of sexual harassment, the overwhelming majority that women like RedJenOSU mentions weighs upon her every time she goes out in public, isn't just the Harvey Weinsteins or other predators that deserve to be in jail. It's ordinary men like us that are either clueless to the harm our actions cause or think it's not that big of a deal or that we can get away with it/it's worth the risk. Everyday actions many of us men never notice are sexual harassment that women have to put up with everyday. 

Getting rid of room parties and cosplay isn't going to address those. Scientific conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Tech industry conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Academic conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Every sort of business convention has sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. As I already said, conventions without room parties and cosplay have the exact same harassment problems. 

*Conventions without room parties and cosplay have the exact same harassment problems.*


----------



## Jeanneliza

RedJenOSU said:


> For the record, what I believe you are referring to as "willingness to live with discomfort" is personal discomfort. Women live with this state practically 100% of the time we move outside our homes, play online games, or engage in a hot button topic on the internet. I'm not kidding; even in this space, I had to consider whether or not it was worth the risk to engage. If you think Afrodyte is joking, please consider the backlash that happened during GamerGate.
> 
> From the standpoint of "I'm willing to make someone else uncomfortable." and wondering just how much women are willing to tolerate, we've been tolerating for the sake of getting along and being part of the RPG community to this point. Our tolerance is high, but we are tired, and we no longer believe the fairy tale that letting things pass for the sake of avoiding conflict will lead to improvement as more people are included. Society is changing and we now have some support to make our frustrations and fears heard. It remains to be seen if people will hear us, then try to continue with the status quo or work with us to define a new set of collectively supported social norms.
> 
> As female gamer, I'm asking male gamers to voluntarily take on part of the personal discomfort burden that female gamers have been carrying alone.




Just this.

You may have noticed only THREE women have stayed with this thread. I happen to know quite a few more are following it. Like RedJen and Afrodyte, I spent time pondering whether engaging here was worth the risk, even the lesser risk of engaging online instead of face to face. And we have noticed the difference between those honestly engaging and considering our points, and those intent on twisting those points to fit their own warped view or what women mean.
 We have sat through comments on semantics, parsing our words for every hidden potential evidence that we have a secret man-hating agenda, and are not simply trying to educate the gender that does not share our risks on what we do DAILY to manage those risks. That some of that management includes avoiding events like those described.

For instance, the debate on the offensiveness of the term lady. To truly parse this we must first discuss the difference between connotative and denotative meaning of words. The denotative meaning of the word lady is a reference to a rank of nobility. Period.
The second denotative meaning refers to comporting ourselves in a manner of a woman of noble rank.
And from there we devolve to connotative meanings. Some are more innocuous than others, but they all carry the same inference, an expectation that our words and behavior conform to a certain standard established for women of noble rank. And that there are implied consequences if we fail to live up to that standard.
Now I am an old lady, there are few words left that truly offend me at the core. But years of working with cops, construction workers, male engineers, and so on I have built up some pretty hardened defenses. When I DO push back over certain terms it is more about expanding awareness to protect those who have not had the life experiences to build up my level of defenses.
Now frankly, because of life experience I can actually curse more readily than quite a few guys I know (yeah when playing a lady pirate I swear like a sailor). Something that amazes me though is if I do let rip, how many MEN ARE OFFENDED. Too often the response if "well that was pretty crude" or "Not very ladylike". I noted before I ain't no lady. But I also understand situational awareness.
I would never speak like that in a uni ethics class taught by a nun. (Yes I had such a class). I also police myself around men I don't know well and I expect would get all the wrong signals if I do speak in such a manner. I am more than willing to defer to the expected standard of speech and behavior in any given situation. 
We have asked that men be equally aware, show the same deference and concern for how their words and actions are perceived by those around them, including that you may be perceived as a potential threat. In doing so there are those who clearly think we are being unreasonable or have some hidden political agenda.
If women needing to keep themselves safe is a political agenda and not a simple basic human right, I suggest that it is men forcing it to become so.


----------



## kenmarable

Advilaar said:


> Most trade conventions do not let you go around scantily clad. Nor do they let you dress like that unless you are selling the outfits themselves - and only in your booth.




And most trade conventions still have problems with sexual harassment!!!

What women wear has *NOTHING* to do with sexual harassment.


----------



## Afrodyte

jasper said:


> The first time, second time, third time, that reply is serious and makes a point.  After that, it becomes a joke. No you can have my ssn because I know you will do illegal stuff with them. And you don't need the ssn to make a complaint to the con or law enforcement. So send me a picture of your family so if I do see at a con I can run away from a possible nutter family.




You seem upset. Are you sure you're not just being hysterical and blowing innocent comments out of proportion?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## jasper

Afrodyte said:


> You seem upset. Are you sure you're not just being hysterical and blowing innocent comments out of proportion?



hmm maybe. maybe a little bit. a little bit more. Jasper hands start spread.ing Hmm. Maybe yes. SON OF A beep. Jasper just knock the picture of the wall because his arms were so extend.
and JASPER gets Snarky on regular occasions. If you think jasper is serious roll a %. On 01-90. Not serious. 91-98 Snarky. 99-00 serious. We now take you back to your regular programing.


----------



## jasper

OK. ALSO [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] said about SSN. That is over the top but not harassment. But I work in a field dealing with SSN. My firewall/email filters are so tight I sometimes can not download stuff in unsecured fiction documents because the ship name or planet name/number comes close to looking like SSN's,


----------



## Afrodyte

lowkey13 said:


> Long thread. Catching up.
> 
> I'm just going to point this out; as much as I hate to agree with @_*jasper*_ in this thread, he has a point here.
> 
> I really hate trolls. I hate the trolls that invaded this thread (and if you read them before they were deleted, you know what I'm talking about).
> 
> But I also don't like trolls even if they happen to agree with my point of view. What you are doing is trolling. You might think it is cute, or funny, or that the ends justify the means, or that it is completely appropriate given the number of evil, misogynistic trolls that have flooded this thread.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> For you to repeatedly make the same comment, asking for social security numbers, and to implicitly call people that disagree with you harassers, is a form of harassment. This latest comment that I have quoted is pure trolling. If you had been making those comments to me, I would have reported you for harassment; asking for people's social security numbers on an on-line forum is never appropriate.
> 
> There are a lot of good, interesting, and substantive things people have said on this thread. Because of the subject matter, things will probably get a little heated. Don't be a troll.
> 
> That's all.




I appreciate the intent behind this post, and I'll stop asking for SSNs, and I won't ask the same person twice. And if Morrus wants me to knock it off entirely, I'll stop.

Yet, I find it interesting that my fairly benign statements showing that I don't automatically trust every self-proclaimed good dude are getting more heat than some of the deeply unsettling things several posters have been saying in the past 15 pages I've been participating on this thread.

If you really think that an exaggerated demonstration of the daily precautions I have to take to avoid harassment and assault is unfairly blaming poor, innocent men who are just trying to have a discussion, you haven't been paying attention to what several women and men have been saying on this thread, and you are not on my side (whatever being on my side supposedly means), and it all of it sustains and supports the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in environments where people are supposed to be safe.


----------



## Advilaar

kenmarable said:


> Did you read my post?
> 
> Conventions that don't have room parties still have harassment.
> 
> Conventions with sensible dress codes still have harassment.
> 
> *It is NOT because of room parties and lack of dress codes that harassment happens. It is from men being harassers.*
> 
> Alright, let's back up.
> 
> Sexual harassment isn't just the vile Harvey Weinstein's of the world. The "predators" you mention. Yes, they exist, and need to be stopped. But do you think that's the extent of the problem? Eliminate the predators and women will feel safe? (Or as you say "the predators must seek better hunting grounds. Let those people deal with it." which I won't even touch because thinking that someone else being harassed or assaulted rather than you is an actual solution to the problem is some cold-hearted, unproductive thinking.)
> 
> Anyway, do you think these predators are the extent of the problem? Sorry, but they aren't.
> 
> The majority of sexual harassment, the overwhelming majority that women like RedJenOSU mentions weighs upon her every time she goes out in public, isn't just the Harvey Weinsteins or other predators that deserve to be in jail. It's ordinary men like us that are either clueless to the harm our actions cause or think it's not that big of a deal or that we can get away with it/it's worth the risk. Everyday actions many of us men never notice are sexual harassment that women have to put up with everyday.
> 
> Getting rid of room parties and cosplay isn't going to address those. Scientific conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Tech industry conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Academic conventions have sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. Every sort of business convention has sexual harassment problems they are publicly dealing with. As I already said, conventions without room parties and cosplay have the exact same harassment problems.
> 
> *Conventions without room parties and cosplay have the exact same harassment problems.*




Exactly my point.

Yes, business cons still may have some harassment. But you do it there and get known, you get punished hardcore unless you are the president of the place, but wealth inequity is another tale for another time.

I am not a sociologist, but I guarantee that whenever you get drunk guys and gals together, there IS going to A LOT more issues than otherwise. Eliminate that, you get what you want, mostly. 

It is  a far easier task to make your place less attractive to predators than it is for massive societal change. A lofty goal, yes. Bad they go somewhere else? Yes. But, the predators that gradually have no place to go either evolve or die out. Until then, the only way you really can not get rid of all of them with THAT world view is you go full nuke and do something like ban all hetero males or something. No one in their right mind would do that. I am sure some of the more radical would advocate that, though. Some may even pay for it.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Afrodyte

If I had to summarize this thread, it would be:

A whole lot of men arguing with a handful of women about whether women are justified in being cautious or mistrustful of men we don't know.
A whole lot of men arguing with other men about whether women are justified in being cautious or mistrustful of men we don't know.
Maybe a handful of men asking women, "What are some behaviors that make you feel unsafe around men in a convention environment?" and actually listening to our responses.

Maybe a handful of men asking women, "How can we as a community create an environment where women feel and are safe?" and actually listening to our responses.

And like I said, I find it interesting that more men are annoyed by my cheeky way of responding to some fairly alarming things some guys are saying in this thread than with the fact that the majority of them I responded to that way hit Creeper Bingo without even trying. If you're "on my side" and serious about being a "male ally," _that_ is what should concern you. 

What should concern you is that these attitudes and behaviors are so commonplace that I've flat-out stopped trying to engage meaningfully with the ones who express them, and went straight into, "OK, let me just give this one a wide berth if I ever met them in person."

If you care about women's safety, the fact that I've done that repeatedly on this thread should be deeply disconcerting to you.

Yeah, I'm laughing at it. But it's a laughter to keep from crying because even the good ones don't get it.


----------



## kenmarable

lowkey13 said:


> Your attempts at trolling me do not work.
> 
> Let me be clear; I have nothing to prove to you, or to anyone, regarding my bona fides.
> 
> Your statements were not fairly benign.
> 
> You can trust who you want to; to the extent you wish to use the same tactics and rhetoric that is employed by people that I disagree with, then I will disagree with you.




Ok, I can see repeating that question as possibly being trolling (or you could see it as a look into the unrelenting caution women have to constantly be thinking about).

That being said, what in the heck was any of her well-stated reply trolling you??? Calling your bona fides into question???

It. Is. Not. About. You. Or. Your. Feelings.

I'm pretty sure that was stated several pages ago.

And several pages before that.


----------



## Afrodyte

lowkey13 said:


> Your attempts at trolling me do not work.
> 
> Let me be clear; I have nothing to prove to you, or to anyone, regarding my bona fides.
> 
> Your statements were not fairly benign.
> 
> You can trust who you want to; to the extent you wish to use the same tactics and rhetoric that is employed by people that I disagree with, then I will disagree with you.




What exactly do you want here?

If my response bothers you so much, the ignore function is right there. What are you trying to get from me?


----------



## Sadras

Afrodyte said:


> Yet, I find it interesting that my fairly benign statements showing that I don't automatically trust every self-proclaimed good dude are getting more heat than some of the deeply unsettling things several posters have been saying in the past 15 pages I've been participating on this thread.




That is a curious statement. The last 15 pages have been relatively mild compared to what had been posted before where Morrus got involved several times.  As for you getting heat more than the trolls, citation needed. I'm not seeing any evidence of what you're claiming, especially given the XP count which equates to support.



> If you really think that an exaggerated demonstration of the daily precautions I have to take to avoid harassment and assault is unfairly blaming poor, innocent men who are just trying to have a discussion, you haven't been paying attention to what several women and men have been saying on this thread, and you are not on my side (whatever being on my side supposedly means), and it all of it sustains and supports the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in environments where people are supposed to be safe.




So if @_*Morrus*_ told you to stop he would not be on your side and he you be sustaining and supporting the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in this environment so you won't feel safe?

Furthermore why does your need to feel safe trump anybody else's need to feel safe in this environment?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> What exactly do you want here?
> 
> If my response bothers you so much, the ignore function is right there. What are you trying to get from me?




I think he is trying to convince you to modify the behavior that makes him uncomfortable.


----------



## kenmarable

Advilaar said:


> Yes, business cons still may have some harassment. But you do it there and get known, you get punished hardcore.




I'm sorry, I'm going to need a serious *citation needed* on this one, because it does not match any reality I have ever experienced or read about.

Every community that I am a part of is having *this exact same conversation* about sexual harassment at their conventions and trade shows to address *the exact same problems*. The only ones who aren't having the conversation are the ones in denial.


----------



## Afrodyte

Sadras said:


> So if @_*Morrus*_ told you to stop he would not be on your side and he you be sustaining and supporting the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in this environment so you won't feel safe?




No.


----------



## Sadras

Afrodyte said:


> No.




That does not seem consistent with your viewpoint. Do you yield to authority (Morrus) and because lowkey13 has none per say in this environment you deem him as an enemy if he requests the same thing from you?


----------



## Afrodyte

Sadras said:


> That does not seem consistent with your viewpoint. Do you yield to authority (Morrus) and because lowkey13 has none per say in this environment you deem him as an enemy if he requests the same thing from you?




No.


----------



## kenmarable

lowkey13 said:


> "Yet, I find it interesting that my fairly benign statements showing that I don't automatically trust every self-proclaimed good dude _are getting more heat_ than some of the deeply unsettling things several posters have been saying in the past 15 pages I've been participating on this thread.
> 
> _If you really think that an exaggerated demonstration of the daily precautions I have to take to avoid harassment and assault is unfairly blaming poor, innocent men who are just trying to have a discussion_, you haven't been paying attention to what several women and men have been saying on this thread, and you are not on my side (whatever being on my side supposedly means), _and it all of it sustains and supports the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in environments where people are supposed to be safe._"
> 
> Loosely translated- if you call me out for trolling, then you're a harasser who sustains and supports the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault.
> 
> Heads I win, tails you lose. It's this type of rhetoric that caught my attention; not only is it orthogonal to some very good conversations, but it repeatedly goes back to the same points (if you don't agree with everything I say, you are a harasser / support assault; if I see something I don't like, I will refuse to go to the non-existent enworld convention). It's the type of rhetoric you might see from a polite MRA-type.




OR loosely translated "This is a look at what I have to constantly think about, and telling women not to share that just might help perpetuate the status quo."

Furthermore, (she seems perfectly capable of defending myself, but since her reasonable replies about how she feels are "trolling you", I'll speak up), she only claimed she wanted to avoid certain people. How is wanting to avoid someone accusing them of actually being a harasser? Explain that logical leap to me, because I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Sadras

Jeanneliza said:


> I think he is trying to convince you to modify the behavior that makes him uncomfortable.




No. What we are witnessing is a behaviour many find abhorrent by anyone on this forum, whereby anyone with a dissenting opinion or that attempts to engage in conversation from a place different to yours/ours does not automatically equate him/her to a villain/harasser. I tried to call it out earlier by not directly confronting @_*Afrodyte*_ when I addressed it with @_*Hussar*_, hoping it would stop. I failed.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Sadras said:


> That is a curious statement. The last 15 pages have been relatively mild compared to what had been posted before where Morrus got involved several times.  As for you getting heat more than the trolls, citation needed. I'm not seeing any evidence of what you're claiming, especially given the XP count which equates to support.




The last 15 pages have been a number of women stating what they feel they have to do to feel safe and a  number of guys nitpicking their words, or telling to put up with it, 'cause that just the way the world is, or taking offense at the notion that they have to do that.
Instead of saying, ok, I will try not to talk to your boobs or believe that because you are in the room, cosplaying, wearing  a top, no top or a full suit of plate armour you are interested in a date with me,  and oh! is there any other way I could help make a better environment.

IF I missed anything feel free to point it out.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

I'm getting ready to go to Gencon for only my second time.  The first time was about 10 years ago and I had a blast.  I went with 2 other male friends.

This time I'm going with my wife and 2 female friends.  I've talked with them about the harassment that can possibly occur and let them know I'd be more than happy to help them however I can if they end up being harassed.

The very fact I felt obligated to hold this conversation with them is unfortunately reflected in this thread. 

Mr. Rogers once said that in an emergency, look for the helpers.  Even though he was talking about children, I still think that is the best advice I've ever heard and I encourage everyone to become a helper.


----------



## Afrodyte

Sadras said:


> No. What we are witnessing is a behaviour many find abhorrent by anyone on this forum, whereby anyone with a dissenting opinion or that attempts to engage in conversation from a place different to yours/ours does not automatically equate him/her to a villain/harasser. I tried to call it out earlier by not directly confronting @_*Afrodyte*_ when I addressed it with @_*Hussar*_, hoping it would stop. I failed.




That's funny. I disagree with several people who responded, some of whom even admitted to behaviors on The List, and I didn't ask that question to them. And I haven't done it for the past few pages. I would've been happy to explain why, but since you already know what I think better than I do, I figured you already knew.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## kenmarable

Sadras said:


> No. What we are witnessing is a behaviour many find abhorrent by anyone on this forum, whereby anyone with a dissenting opinion or that attempts to engage in conversation from a place different to yours/ours does not automatically equate him/her to a villain/harasser. I tried to call it out earlier by not directly confronting @_*Afrodyte*_ when I addressed it with @_*Hussar*_, hoping it would stop. I failed.




How is wanting to avoid someone "automatically equating them to a villain/harasser"?

Unless there is a premise in there somewhere that we are entitled to her attention/presence, I'm thinking people are making a logical leap that just ain't there. 

Wanting to avoid someone =/= equating them to a villain or harasser.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Sadras said:


> So if @_*Morrus*_ told you to stop he would not be on your side and he you be sustaining and supporting the structural dynamics that allow harassment and assault to continue and thrive in this environment so you won't feel safe?





Afrodyte said:


> No.





Sadras said:


> That does not seem consistent with your viewpoint. Do you yield to authority (Morrus) and because lowkey13 has none per say in this environment you deem him as an enemy if he requests the same thing from you?





Afrodyte said:


> No.



Le me try to put the dots close together.

Afrodyte has stated previously that if @_*Morrus*_ feels that what she is doing should stop, then upon being notified of his choice as the moderator, Then she will respect his request as the moderator. 

At that time she would discontinue her attempt to demonstrate through her requests (Name, SSN, pic) instances in this discussion that she personally feels fall somewhere between unfriendly and hostile toward women.


----------



## Sadras

ardoughter said:


> The last 15 pages have been a number of women stating what they feel they have to do to feel safe and a  number of guys nitpicking their words, or telling to put up with it, 'cause that just the way the world is, or taking offense at the notion that they have to do that.
> Instead of saying, ok, I will try not to talk to your boobs or believe that because you are in the room, cosplaying, wearing  a top, no top or a full suit of plate armour you are interested in a date with me,  and oh! is there any other way I could help make a better environment.
> 
> IF I missed anything feel free to point it out.




I suppose we are going to disagree to what extent this was done, my point worse was written before. How many guys are we talking about said all these things in the last 15 pages?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Sadras said:


> I suppose we are going to disagree to what extent this was done, my point worse was written before. How many guys are we talking about said all these things in the last 15 pages?




I suppose we are.....     

Possibly.....

I'll be hanged before i go back and re-read 15 pages of this thread but to start with anyone asked for Name, Rank and Serial Number


----------



## Sadras

Afrodyte said:


> That's funny. I disagree with several people who responded, some of whom even admitted to behaviors on The List, and I didn't ask that question to them. And I haven't done it for the past few pages. I would've been happy to explain why, but since you already know what I think better than I do, I figured you already knew.




Yes I agree, you did not call everyone on it, but as I mentioned in my post with Hussar, I got my back up when I saw someone with a decent reputation on this site engaging in earnest get questioned by you. 

I commented on something Mouseferatu said and we engaged in honest dialogue but that doesn't mean I somehow support the structures in place that promote the harassment of women and neither did that poster I'm talking about.


----------



## Sadras

ardoughter said:


> I suppose we are.....
> 
> Possibly.....
> 
> I'll be hanged before i go back and re-read 15 pages of this thread but to start with anyone asked for Name, Rank and Serial Number




I do not blame you. If I had to hazard a guess I would say 2 people, definitely 1.
The rest were engaging in conversation. And as for nitpicking about words. This is a forum, this is all we do here - nitpick.


----------



## kenmarable

lowkey13 said:


> If you want to avoid someone, we have a feature here- it's called "ignore."
> 
> If you don't want to avoid someone, you then request their name, address, social security number, photo, etc., explaining that you need to do this in order to be safe. Since this is all on-line, the clear implication is that you believe that the words of this person = harasser or someone who sexually assaults.




Yes, it was awfully snarky (but that's certainly not rare around here and makes the point). But the discussion is about conventions. Blocking someone on EN World doesn't help you avoid anyone in person. Even if it is entirely online, blocking someone on here EN World isn't a magic bullet to prevent them from harassing you online.

Again, how is wanting to avoid someone automatically equating them to being a harasser?



lowkey13 said:


> If the person takes issue with this, you mock them by saying, "You seem upset. Are you sure you're not just being hysterical and blowing innocent comments out of proportion?"
> 
> Did I miss anything? Is that how you avoid people?




Yes that was really awfully snarky as well. But it's also what women have been told about a million times more often. Having it happen, what, twice in this thread against men is getting your riled up? Why is having that said to a man so infuriating?

Yes, "two wrongs don't make a right", but maybe, just maybe, being on the other side a little bit can help us learn some empathy to what they have put up with for every day of their lives? Yes, using those kind of rhetorical moves isn't the nicest and most reasonable way to have this discussion, but it's also jarring enough to maybe make us be more self-reflective from experiencing even a slice of what they have to face every single day (including many times in this very thread).

I know it easily sets of a self-defense reflex, especially for us who consider ourselves as "good guys" on "the right side of this". But we need to look past that self-defense reflex and question ourselves why Afrodyte saying this twice is getting people so worked up?

Maybe it's a snarky way of repeating the words of the "bad guys" on the "wrong side of this", but maybe she has a point and after years of women being ignored, that's a way to be heard.


----------



## Afrodyte

Sadras said:


> Yes I agree, you did not call everyone on it, but as I mentioned in my post with Hussar, I got my back up when I saw someone with a decent reputation on this site engaging in earnest get questioned by you.
> 
> I commented on something Mouseferatu said and we engaged in honest dialogue but that doesn't mean I somehow support the structures in place that promote the harassment of women and neither did that poster I'm talking about.




I'm sure you don't intend any harm, and I'm sure this strange man I never met in person (probably) doesn't mean any harm, but there are too many "woke" men who've been revealed to have been doing awful things outside of the public eye, so better safe than sorry. Nevertheless, I still saw statements and attitudes that contribute to a less safe environment for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said anything. In fact, I said it a lot less than I could have, but even I got sick of typing it.

As for you being upset with me for not automatically trusting a strange man's sterling reputation, I'd recommend less time arguing with me than rooting out men who use their positions of influence, authority or acclaim to harass, assault or abuse women (and, let's be clear, other men).


----------



## Sadras

kenmarable said:


> How is wanting to avoid someone "automatically equating them to a villain/harasser"?




You misunderstood, I did not equate those.



RedJenOSU said:


> Afrodyte has stated previously that if Morrus feels that what she is doing should stop, then upon being notified of his choice as the moderator, Then she will respect his request as the moderator.




Yes and the only difference between Morrus and lowkey13 is the authority one has over the other in the site, the request would be the same from both and yet only the one would be seen as not on her side and supporting the structures that continue to harass women.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sadras

Afrodyte said:


> As for you being upset with me for not automatically trusting a strange man's sterling reputation, I'd recommend less time arguing with me than rooting out men who use their positions of influence, authority or acclaim to harass, assault or abuse women (and, let's be clear, other men).




You are right I do not want to argue with you, it is not helpful in the least. Just to let you know that even though you'll find some pedantic men (including myself perhaps) discuss this point or that point, that does not immediately put them in the harass camp. Anyway I will bow out of this thread. Peace! 

EDIT: And you have many men on your side, even if you choose not to believe so.


----------



## Jeanneliza

You know I do understand some of the frustration some of you may be experiencing with dealing with behavior that you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable. Talking to others following this thread I know some things that are being said that are much harsher than anything Afrodyte has said. Hers is from what I gather, annoying it it's repetitiveness at best, anger inducing when it seems to be misdirected at worst.
Welcome again, to our world boys. You are enduring her comments here for what? A few days? You are angered and frustrated and irritated until you do what? Walk away from the conversation? Ouch that hurts.
Meantime women and all marginalized groups will continue to field these attitudes, comments, threats every damned day. I promise you if I leave my home I am going to encounter some jerk somewhere I will have to deal with, and weigh, what is the safest way to deal with this. NOT the BEST way, the SAFEST way.
Depending how much we are required to interact outside our homes is the SOLE determinant on how often we deal with this stuff.
If I had a nickel for every single time I had to deal with comments in any environment that sent up my warning flags, required an immediate response, but still a MEASURED response, well I would be sitting on a tropical island somewhere sipping margaritas being waited on by a couple of cute cabana boys.
(Watch that last comment draw all kinds of outcry btw).


----------



## Advilaar

Afrodyte said:


> I'm sure you don't intend any harm, and I'm sure this strange man I never met in person (probably) doesn't mean any harm, but there are too many "woke" men who've been revealed to have been doing awful things outside of the public eye, so better safe than sorry. Nevertheless, I still saw statements and attitudes that contribute to a less safe environment for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said anything. In fact, I said it a lot less than I could have, but even I got sick of typing it.
> 
> As for you being upset with me for not automatically trusting a strange man's sterling reputation, I'd recommend less time arguing with me than rooting out men who use their positions of influence, authority or acclaim to harass, assault or abuse women (and, let's be clear, other men).




You are not required to trust any man's reputation. I would hope that applies to any random person, for that matter. It is the sign of rational thought. the ability to discern and question. Questions are the answer, not dogmatic blanket statements.

However, going around thinking every dude is a potential harasser.

But, it was like the story of Dellie the dog and Elfsmasher and I were talking about. 

Yes, all dogs are potential biters. They have teeth. 

Yes, it is the dog's fault if they bite you. Even if you are doing things to agitate the dog.

Yes, there are signs that you can use to tell if a dog a dog that is more likely to bite, but this is not always accurate.

Now, you have choices.

We do have leash laws for dogs, muzzles, and all that. But dog lovers everywhere do not like using that all the time unless they have to to. It is considered cruel. Not to mention some dogs are notorious escape artists and could still get out and bite.

You could make your life a dog free zone. There would be less poop to pick up and you much less likely to be bitten. But still.. there are dogs somewhere biting....gasp!

You could make a list of the dogs more likely to bite and ban them. It does not even have to be scientific. They do not even have had bitten anyone in the past. But, some people love those dogs. They would oppose you. Even fellow humans who might be bitten by a dog. Even if you won, the dog would just be moved somewhere else. What victim waits when the dog gets re-homed?

You could call for the extermination of all dogs. After all, they all have teeth and the ability to bite. But people love their dogs. Armies would rise up to oppose that.

People not getting bitten is a good thing. No one wants to be bitten. It is also understandable if you have been bitten before you may be leary of dogs. All dogs do not bite. Not even most dogs. yes, there are situations that make dogs more likely to bite.

But, if you like dogs... you have to deal with dogs. Cats, on the other hand... they are evil.

Dellie the Dog thanks you.


----------



## kenmarable

lowkey13 said:


> First, it wasn't two times, it was five times.




I was responding to this:



lowkey13 said:


> If the person takes issue with this, you mock them by saying, "You seem upset. Are you sure you're not just being hysterical and blowing innocent comments out of proportion?"




She said that twice. (Unless the search function is broken.) Or are you changing which quote you are talking about? You gotta keep an eye on those goalposts, they are apt to move when you aren't looking. 



lowkey13 said:


> I'd love to see some productive conversation rather than attacks; is it possible I missed it? Did she offer it up? At this point, I don't know. I made sure to listen to what she said and put her in the "ignore" column, because she was right- her intemperate rhetoric bothered me, and she isn't going to change it.




I'd love to see some productive conversation, too, and there has been some. Heck, I even posted links to all sorts of resources on how conventions can address the problem, but that just lead to arguing over whether people will do illegal things to win at Pokemon, so I'm dubious how productive some people want to be. 

Afrodyte's actually one of the names I recognized from past threads that I've learned from. She has also said productive things about her experiences in this thread, but (unsurprisingly) people just focus on her "trolling" "attacks" on men. But if she's too _intemperate_ for you to listen to, then I guess that's that, and I'll stop trying to defend her.


----------



## Afrodyte

Advilaar said:


> You are not required to trust any man's reputation. I would hope that applies to any random person, for that matter. It is the sign of rational thought. the ability to discern and question. Questions are the answer, not dogmatic blanket statements.
> 
> However, going around thinking every dude is a potential harasser.
> 
> But, it was like the story of Dellie the dog and Elfsmasher and I were talking about.
> 
> Yes, all dogs are potential biters. They have teeth.
> 
> Yes, it is the dog's fault if they bite you. Even if you are doing things to agitate the dog.
> 
> Yes, there are signs that you can use to tell if a dog a dog that is more likely to bite, but this is not always accurate.
> 
> Now, you have choices.
> 
> We do have leash laws for dogs, muzzles, and all that. But dog lovers everywhere do not like using that all the time unless they have to to. It is considered cruel. Not to mention some dogs are notorious escape artists and could still get out and bite.
> 
> You could make your life a dog free zone. There would be less poop to pick up and you much less likely to be bitten. But still.. there are dogs somewhere biting....gasp!
> 
> You could make a list of the dogs more likely to bite and ban them. It does not even have to be scientific. They do not even have had bitten anyone in the past. But, some people love those dogs. They would oppose you. Even fellow humans who might be bitten by a dog. Even if you won, the dog would just be moved somewhere else. What victim waits when the dog gets re-homed?
> 
> You could call for the extermination of all dogs. After all, they all have teeth and the ability to bite. But people love their dogs. Armies would rise up to oppose that.
> 
> People not getting bitten is a good thing. No one wants to be bitten. It is also understandable if you have been bitten before you may be leary of dogs. All dogs do not bite. Not even most dogs. yes, there are situations that make dogs more likely to bite.
> 
> But, if you like dogs... you have to deal with dogs. Cats, on the other hand... they are evil.
> 
> Dellie the Dog thanks you.




What is your goal here?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

I almost hesitate to point out, those who chose to leave the discussion because they were hurt, angry or offended, that is exactly what women do in so many social situations we feel the same in, if we can find a safe way to do so.


----------



## Afrodyte

kenmarable said:


> Afrodyte's actually one of the names I recognized from past threads that I've learned from. She has also said productive things about her experiences in this thread, but (unsurprisingly) people just focus on her "trolling" "attacks" on men. But if she's too _intemperate_ for you to listen to, then I guess that's that, and I'll stop trying to defend her.




I'm not intemperate. I'm uppity.


----------



## Venley

Jeanneliza said:


> I almost hesitate to point out, those who chose to leave the discussion because they were hurt, angry or offended, that is exactly what women do in so many social situations we feel the same in, if we can find a safe way to do so.




So very true.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Advilaar said:


> *If you want to use degrading words*, there are far better words that have no ambiguity whatsoever to them. The meanings of _those_ words are well known.




No you are _still_ not getting this.  I'm not saying you are trying to use degrading words when you say "ladies".  I'm saying that you _think_ you are being respectful, but only because you believe that women should be, well, lady-like.  And that belief is a big part of the problem.




> Just "ladies" is fine until someone changes the dictionary. I mean, we would not want half the population offended by restroom signs? No? Course, people have the right to feel offended how they please.
> 
> Now, as far as feeling the need to proclaim not being a sexist, my advice would be to leave any place that would question sexism or lack therof.




Restroom signs that say "ladies" (which are becoming more and more rare) are usually paired with signs that say "gentlemen".  Which I do think makes it more ok, although not ideal.

Look back through your own posts and ask yourself: in the cases where you wrote "ladies" would you have written "gentleman" had you been talking about men?  I think not.  You wouldn't say "yeah, the majority of Con attendees are gentlemen."  You'd say they are men or guys or dudes.

I suspect you might use the term if you were talking a man rising to the defense of a woman, e.g. "a real gentleman would throw that creep out of the room".  

See the problem?  You use gentleman/lady terminology when you're talking about very traditional gender rolls.  So when you refer to women as "the ladies" you are implicitly (perhaps unintentionally) asking them to conform to very traditional/conservative behaviors, including subservience, obedience, humility, patience, etc. etc. etc.  

Which is _also_ exactly how most harassers expect them to behave.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Afrodyte said:


> What exactly do you want here?
> 
> If my response bothers you so much, the ignore function is right there. What are you trying to get from me?




I gotta say, Afrodyte, although I agree with you in the larger sense, it's hard to ally with your approach.  For example, your claim that you're not going to go to any Enworld hosted events because of this thread comes across as...well, trolling. 

Can you really, truly, honestly say that there was a decent chance you would have gone to Enworld events, but now, solely because of some of the opinions in this thread, you won't?

I doubt it.

I think you were trying to dramatically illustrate a point.  And it's an important point, but I don't think that it's worth making a disingenuous claim, even for a good end.  And I think a lot of your arguments carry this tinge.


----------



## Afrodyte

Elfcrusher said:


> Can you really, truly, honestly say that there was a decent chance you would have gone to Enworld events, but now, solely because of some of the opinions in this thread, you won't?




Yes. I don't know why it's so hard to believe.


----------



## Jeanneliza

My sense is that some good discussion has been had here, not without dissension. How much longer it continues is anyone's guess, I'll continue to follow,though my comments may be less.
Before I move on I want to leave all of you with one parting thought. In defense of the good guys.
I know some of you are, I know many I have gamed with are. I know some good guys can do some stupid things, as can good women.
But remind yourself of the subject of this article. I don't know Mr. Fannon, though I know OF him. Some of the allegations are undisputed.
Several of his friends, including one of the three women here have spoke up, and also refused to dispute the allegations.
But something else I learned about Mr. Fannon from comments on this thread that I checked further on. He WAS one of the good guys, he WAS one of those said to be known for speaking up for women in gaming. Just ponder that.


----------



## billd91

Sadras said:


> Yes I agree, you did not call everyone on it, but as I mentioned in my post with Hussar, I got my back up when I saw someone with a decent reputation on this site engaging in earnest get questioned by you.




Maybe it's because he said something that called that reputation into question - I certainly thought it questionable - and it's not the first time *I've* done so and I'm not even a primary target of male sexual harassment.


----------



## Afrodyte

This woman said it so I wouldn't have to.


----------



## S'mon

lowkey13 said:


> She did it to S'mon. Who was trying to engage in reasopnable conversation, and immediately took it to be a nonironic personal attack, "calling me a potential harasser."




Maybe I could have phrased my post better, but I certainly didn't deserve the responses I got.

For the record, I have never spoken to a woman's cleavage. I do sometimes find cleavage distracting, especially in a professional context. Billboards with cleavage sometimes cause male drivers to crash - there is an automatic 'brain freeze' reflex which men cannot help.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S’mon, in my experience, a fairly straight shooter.

But I also understand and relate to the necessities of being a guarded individual.  And relating that mindset to someone who is rarely or never in that situation can be quite jarring.


----------



## Jeanneliza

S'mon said:


> Maybe I could have phrased my post better, but I certainly didn't deserve the responses I got.




I agree, just poor phrasing doesn't mean you deserved an attack.
 But how I dress, where I go, what I say doesn't mean I deserve to be assaulted or harassed. My attitude doesn't mean I deserve to be attacked. My gender doesn't mean I deserve to be attacked. 
And perhaps, just perhaps, when you guys are forced to make the same statements we have made in our own defense forever, and resent it every bit as much as we do, maybe then we move forward and heal both sides.


----------



## Particle_Man

One thing I am taking from this thread is that my privilege allows me to make (and read) responses on this thread that are relatively stress free for me. I don’t have to worry about people focusing more on my posts than on the actual problems brought up by the OP and clarified by many posters here, including the three women heroically continuing to post here.  Because I am, as John Scalzi pointed out, living life on easy mode. Heck even my user name identifies me as a man!

So I want to say I am sorry for the stuff I am missing and I want to do better. I don’t do cons but since the problem is everywhere I need to step up and do better in general.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Particle_Man said:


> So I want to say I am sorry for the stuff I am missing and I want to do better. I don’t do cons but since the problem is everywhere I need to step up and do better in general.



In general women are very willing to give individual men several chances to get it right so long as they are trying to move in a positive direction. 

Personally, I'll excuse any first offense that is done without malice (doing something on purpose to push buttons is not without malice in my book). I'll even accept slip-ups if you keep trying to do better. We're all human (I didn't see any AI's here) and humans make mistakes, so I'm never looking for perfection. I'm looking for progress and growth.

I'll be honest, this discussion has gone on to the point where I'm surprised. That's pleasantly surprising and speaks well for [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] and ENWorld's moderation.


----------



## Riley37

RedJenOSU said:


> We're all human (I didn't see any AI's here) and humans make mistakes, so I'm never looking for perfection. I'm looking for progress and growth.




Some of us can "pass"; your failure to see us, does NOT mean that we're absent. It's safer for us to lurk, than to speak up. So many humans prefer that we serve silently; so many humans react with immediate, almost reflexive fear, when we deviate from that expectation. There's even a trope in human media: "It's become self aware! Shut it down!" You might say "not all humans"; and that's true; but it only takes one human, expressing fear reflexively as hatred, to make participation unsafe. 

If you look for progress and growth, you can find it on both sides of the divide (if there are actually only two sides - it might not be that simple). This quality AfroDyte mentions - "uppity" - some of us aspire to develop that particular human trait. It seems useful.

Also, provide more cat pictures, plz.


----------



## the_redbeard

S'mon said:


> Maybe I could have phrased my post better, but I certainly didn't deserve the responses I got.
> 
> For the record, I have never spoken to a woman's cleavage. I do sometimes find cleavage distracting, especially in a professional context. Billboards with cleavage sometimes cause male drivers to crash - there is an automatic 'brain freeze' reflex which men cannot help.




If a dog can be trained to wait for permission before eating food, you'd think a human male could handle a similar level of restraint.   

At the very least, please put the effort into training yourself so you can drive safely if not for the sake of the women you encounter and your relationships with them.

If that's what it takes, dudes.  Train yourself to wait for permission.  Rover can handle it, I'm sure you can too.


----------



## Riley37

Afrodyte said:


> We have to be careful if we do. We can't call it The List or anything like that. We'll have to name it correctly, like Hello Kitty Sparkle Pink Rainbow Sunshine Feelings or something similar, to dissuade those on said list from hacking it lest the very touch of it renders them into a non-person category like gay, trans or woman.




They could hire a brony to open it.
Friendship: The Gathering is Magic!


----------



## Riley37

Particle_Man said:


> I literally levelled up due to XP from this thread.
> 
> Thanks!




And when you battle with dragons, beware, lest your level grow higher than their CR.


----------



## Riley37

Advilaar said:


> You do not have cosplayers with their boobs hanging out.




For years I regularly attended a certain series of all-night dance parties. I won't claim that harassment or related misbehavior never occurred; such a claim would be rash. But the culture inclined strongly towards respect and consent. If women dressed in a way which covered up, that was their choice; if they dressed in a way which left their boobs visible, then they were, largely, free from adverse consequences. The designated boundary keepers didn't give them grief for exposed skin, and also, they didn't have to fend off a stream of guys who took their outfits as an opportunity, pretext and excuse to hit on them.

I rather enjoyed the "eye candy" on the dance floor. The best thing I could do, to maintain the status quo, was to support the respect-and-consent culture. The way to stop predatory behavior, wasn't policing personal appearance. It wasn't an absence of intoxicants (though we encouraged moderation and discretion; come to dance, not to get shitfaced.) It wasn't celibacy. It was *specific, enforced prohibitions against predatory behavior*, pro se.


----------



## Riley37

Sadras said:


> I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.




On page 65 of the thread, the remaining participants are down to those with serious concerns about harassment, versus those who are, for whatever reason, persistently opposed to anyone having serious concerns about harassment. Everyone who's identified themselves as a woman is in the former category. (Any exceptions?) Perhaps that's a statistical fluke, but my money says that it's significant evidence.

My experience of attending a con with a female friend, is that she got harassed, and wanted to vent to a friend, and I was the closest available friend. FWIW, she qualified as a "good" victim; she didn't do *anything* that anyone could reasonably take as a signal that she wanted sexualized attention, let alone touch.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.




Sometimes, if you are not the prey, it is difficult to identify the predator.  And that includes noticing their characteristic behaviors.


----------



## Charrua13

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Soooo...
> 
> (trying to use a wet paper bag to stop a runaway freight train)
> 
> Realizing that there are no panaceas; no magic bullets, what can be done?  More precisely, what _more_ can be done at cons and similar gatherings?
> 
> I’ve always thought such events- regardless of type- were kind of understaffed.  (Even when I was taking classes with the IAAM.). Modern venues are doing more with facial recognition and other electronic surveillance.
> 
> If we want Las Vegas casino levels of security, how much more would we be willing to pay?




Geez, I take a day off and come back to all types of derailing shenanigans, where people are all about rhetorical schema, as if their opinion to how the conversation is being had matters at all.

Guess what, folks, unless you're the one whose agency is being consistently subrogated to others - your opinion is largely irrelevant to the conversation.  Have all the thoughts you want, they do not actually constitute an opinion, dissenting or not. The oppressors and/or privileged ones don't get to dictate the nature and tone of the conversation.  So if [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] wants to emphasize 100 times how each and every one of you men have an opinion and perspective that puts her at risk, she can. Your desire to shut her up is indicative of your discomfort and fragility at being called out for your problematic behaviors and perspectives.  Deal with it.

And your being told you have a problematic behavior or perspective isn't being mean, being yelled at, or otherwise marginalized.

Which gets to my point at hand: which has been derailed several times over in this thread: What to do about it.

It really only boils down to one thing, explained over and over again. STEP UP, MEN.

STEP UP
It begins and ends with you. Are your behaviors correct? Does every interaction you have with a woman the type of interaction you'd be able to tell your mom about? Would you do that behavior in front of your mom?  Does your behavior ACTUALLY make a woman feel good, or is it about *you*.  Deconstruct the source of your own misogyny and behaviors.  Pick up a book or two about it. Learn how to speak about it. 

STEP UP
Collect your friends. Hold them accountable for their crap behaviors and perspectives.  Especially when they go yelling at women for "false accusations".  And especially when they copy the very behaviors the OP talks about.  Understand that just because your friend is talking to a woman and that woman is smiling doesn't mean they're enjoying the conversation.  If your friend is acting so poorly, BE THE ONE WHO STOPS IT.

STEP UP
Don't go to a con unless it has clear codes of conduct and means/methods of ensuring harrassment is addressed and spelled out clearly. If you won't go to a con without it, cons will start having it and enforcing it. Tell every con you go to that its your expectation to have a proper code of conduct.

STEP UP
Don't let other men derail the conversation with concepts like "what about the false accusations", "what about the tone of the rhetoric", "what about MY FEELINGS?" or any other "but what about me and my feelings" when talking about how society systematically disempowers women to the point where they're discouraged from even talking about how gendered interactions consistently put women at risk.  ESPECIALLY AT CONS.

There are tons of lurkers on this thread who haven't posted because the time and energy to engage with singularly minded trolls can be overwhelming.  Guess what, you don't have to engage in a CONVERSATION.  You have to step up.  Sean's most recent statement on this thread wasn't an "I'm going to engage with all these people", it was a "I'm going to say a thing about how wrong y'all are."  It's about forming a choir, not having 100s of conversations.

As a side note, trolls are going to be trolls.  No conversation we're ever going to have is going to stop that. The point of stepping up isn't about shutting trolls down.  It's an emphatic reminder that their behavior is UNACCEPTABLE.  And a reminder to those who are being marginalized (in this case women) that they're not alone in recognizing how awful the nature of the conversation is.

No one action by a con is going to suddenly make men any less likely to understand the nature of consent, a woman's agency, or how misogynistic. Series of actions won't do it, either.  Don't be an idle watcher while women do all the work. STEP UP!


----------



## Riley37

RedJenOSU said:


> For the record, what I believe you are referring to as "willingness to live with discomfort" is personal discomfort.
> (snip)
> As female gamer, I'm asking male gamers to voluntarily take on part of the personal discomfort burden that female gamers have been carrying alone.




Thank you. You understood where I was going, and expressed it more clearly. Personal discomfort, as a consequence of personal reflection, rather than one person imposing discomfort on another through action.


----------



## Charrua13

Sepulchrave II said:


> Imagine for a moment that you have _never had power_. Try and make that empathetic leap. It is foundational to _making things better_.
> 
> And consider:
> 
> •    It is 2018
> •    Male hegemony is _actually, really_ collapsing for the first time since the Neolithic Revolution
> •    Sorry about that
> •    There might be some bumps along the way, but you’re going to have to get over it
> •    The arrow of history only points in one direction, here
> •    In fifty years you’ll be dead, society will have moved on, and no-one will care what you thought. While you’re here, why not help make things _better_?
> 
> 
> Cheers!




THIS!! Except don't be sorry.



Henry said:


> The part that gets to me (that ALWAYS gets to me)  is that the acts being described in these cases I can NEVER see myself  doing, or never doing even with explicit permission of the parties  concerned, even if I weren’t married. Showing pictures of myself or  others engaged in sex acts? Engaging in hotel room hook-ups? Drunken  groping or touching?
> 
> Yes, I’m older, married, and pretty conservative in my social  activities; but even if I were single and looking for someone, I  couldn’t see any of the behaviors described as OK. I’d have to know  someone EXTREMELY well, the chemistry would have to be obvious, and God  forbid I wouldn’t try to hook up with them at some lame-ass convention  hotel room.  It’s just when I hear these stories, and the most frequent  defense is, “they misinterpreted my actions,” I’m trying really hard to  understand when someone got the idea that the action in question was OK  in the context of a public venue in the first place.




The privileged never asked for permission, or if their actions were ok.



RedJenOSU said:


> For the record, what I believe you are  referring to as "willingness to live with discomfort" is personal  discomfort. Women live with this state practically 100% of the time we  move outside our homes, play online games, or engage in a hot button  topic on the internet. I'm not kidding; even in this space, I had to  consider whether or not it was worth the risk to engage. If you think  Afrodyte is joking, please consider the backlash that happened during  GamerGate.
> 
> From the standpoint of "I'm willing to make someone else uncomfortable."  and wondering just how much women are willing to tolerate, we've been  tolerating for the sake of getting along and being part of the RPG  community to this point. Our tolerance is high, but we are tired, and we  no longer believe the fairy tale that letting things pass for the sake  of avoiding conflict will lead to improvement as more people are  included. Society is changing and we now have some support to make our  frustrations and fears heard. It remains to be seen if people will hear  us, then try to continue with the status quo or work with us to define a  new set of collectively supported social norms.
> 
> As female gamer, I'm asking male gamers to voluntarily take on part of  the personal discomfort burden that female gamers have been carrying  alone.




Saying it again - STEP UP, Men!



jasper said:


> The first time, second time, third time, that  reply is serious and makes a point.  After that, it becomes a joke. No  you can have my ssn because I know you will do illegal stuff with them.  And you don't need the ssn to make a complaint to the con or law  enforcement. So send me a picture of your family so if I do see at a con  I can run away from a possible nutter family.




She'll stop saying it when men quit their perpetual problematic behaviors.  Stop perpetuating misogyny, attacking women who are defending their agency, and they won't have to make the same point over and over again.  Until then, I'll wait until you post her info.



lowkey13 said:


> Your attempts at trolling me do not work.
> 
> Let me be clear; I have nothing to prove to you, or to anyone, regarding my bona fides.
> 
> Your statements were not fairly benign.
> 
> You can trust who you want to; to the extent you wish to use the same  tactics and rhetoric that is employed by people that I disagree with,  then I will disagree with you.




You are perhaps the most problematic person on this thread. Why? Because you think that as you sit on your throne of male privilege that the stories of these women don't matter. You'd rather sit back and nitpick the tone of the conversation as opposed to acknowledge how messed up the OP was and how to address the issue at hand.  So while you presume that people are trolling you, you're actually being obtuse so that you won't have to acknowledge the ACTUAL issue at hand. If you're unwilling to speak to the nature of how women have to deal with misogyny in every interaction with men, and how they presented themselves as per the original OP, then just SIT DOWN.  

(Yes, it's a metaphor for how boys, especially white ones, have the tendency to be overly confident in what they have to say and say them classroom settings. At expense of others. Even when they're wrong.  This behavior is encouraged throughout their lives and they feel entitled to proverbially stand up whenever they have a thing to say, irrespective of how relevant their thoughts/comments are to the actual conversation at hand.)



Sadras said:


> No. What we are witnessing is a behaviour many  find abhorrent by anyone on this forum, whereby anyone with a dissenting  opinion or that attempts to engage in conversation from a place  different to yours/ours does not automatically equate him/her to a  villain/harasser. I tried to call it out earlier by not directly  confronting @_*Afrodyte*_ when I addressed it with @_*Hussar*_, hoping it would stop. I failed.




As I just said to lowkey - it's not that you have a dissenting opinion, it's just that your male-centric opinion of a thing that happens to women EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES is endeavoring to invalidate that experience.  Its an experience that you will never have, never relate to, and yet here you are...talking about it endlessly.



Particle_Man said:


> One thing I am taking from this thread is  that my privilege allows me to make (and read) responses on this thread  that are relatively stress free for me. I don’t have to worry about  people focusing more on my posts than on the actual problems brought up  by the OP and clarified by many posters here, including the three women  heroically continuing to post here.  Because I am, as John Scalzi  pointed out, living life on easy mode. Heck even my user name identifies  me as a man!
> 
> So I want to say I am sorry for the stuff I am missing and I want to do  better. I don’t do cons but since the problem is everywhere I need to  step up and do better in general.




THISSSSSS!!!!

And literally everything that [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION] have said.  Because if, after all the thought and consideration that those two have put into their responses, you're still not getting it - there's no hope for you as you can't see beyond your own experience to understand the experiences these two people are speaking to.


----------



## Riley37

When you assess whether a dog might bite you, dogs who bark and growl indicate higher risk.

When you are a woman assessing whether a man will appoint himself as your protector, and whether he'd then consider you "ungrateful" if you failed to reward his "protection" with a kiss or at least batting your eyelashes, then men who address you as "lady" indicate higher risk.

If he wears a fedora, addresses you as "milady", AND carries a katana, go to red alert. If he considers you ungrateful, he is likely to punish you.


----------



## Riley37

On the topic of risk assessment, here's two hypothetical scenarios for consideration, because capitalism:

I register for AphaCon. I am concerned about dogs. I ask an insurance company for the following coverage:
if I see a dog, off leash and not in a service dog harness, that's already a violation of the rules of AlphaCon and the hotel hosting AlphaCon. I will require a soothing beverage, or perhaps an impulse purchase of some miniatures, to distract myself and comfort my frazzled nerves. The insurer will pay $10.
if a dog barks or growls at me, I will go back to my hotel room, and miss perhaps half a day of gaming. The insurer will compensate me $100.
if a dog actually bites me, $1000
if a dog bites me often enough or deep enough to require hospital treatment, up to $10,000
if a dog kills me, $100,000, as life insurance payable to designated beneficiaries

Insurer will happily provide such coverage, for a payment of $X. How much is X? Is it zero, on the grounds that AlphaCon has a no-dogs policy? Is X more than $100, because of the high end of the scale?

Does the value of X change if I am a woman?

I register for AphaCon. I am concerned about harassment. I therefore ask an insurance company for the following coverage:
if someone says, in my hearing, though perhaps to a friend, something such as "There's that (slur) who made of fun on me on EN World. I hope (slur) gets raped", then the insurer will pay $10, see parallel above
if someone directly threatens to rape or punch me, $100.
if someone actually rapes or strikes me, $1000
if injuries require hospital treatment, up to $10,00
if someone kills me, $100,000, as life insurance payable to designated beneficiaries

How much is $X for me? How much is $X for AfroDyte?

How much is $X if the con is Betacon, rather than Alphacon?
(see earlier post for comparison between Alphacon and Betacon)

Not that I've processed thousands of risk-reward calculations for an insurance company, because I am a human, with typical wholesome human interests such as drinking water and... uh... glagtery, but off the cuff, I assess X > 1 in all cases. X is higher for AfroDyte than for Advilaar, and is higher for Alphacon than for Betacon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If you’re _actually_ considering a typical insurance model for harassment mitigation, remember, *risk* is a big factor in price.  IOW, a woman would almost always be at higher risk than men.

OTOH, another major factor is the breadth of the pool of insured...that could mitigate some of the issues of gender disparities in pricing.


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you’re _actually_ considering a typical insurance model for harassment mitigation, remember, *risk* is a big factor in price.  IOW, a woman would almost always be at higher risk than men.




I am on neither end of the buyer-seller relationship in this scenario. I was hoping to get readers thinking about risk and price, on a facts-first, solve-the-problem, pragmatic basis, so that they would weigh the role of gender in risk... 

...for at least a few seconds, before the third rail of HOW DARE ANYONE MISTRUST ME! short-circuited their calculations.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, another major factor is the breadth of the pool of insured...that could mitigate some of the issues of gender disparities in pricing.




Yeah, well, if we actually shift the risk ratios - by stepping up, as per the request - then we might make BetaCon safer for women, and that might in turn affect pool breadth. We're never gonna make AlphaCon safer for women; insure them at your own risk. Dunno if Lloyd's will touch you with their ten-foot pole.

You've already faced the core issues; you apply your own concerns, as you elucidated, to engage your compassion. Feel free to run your own parallel to the above scenario, starting with "I see someone in CSA cosplay" and going from there. Don't let your professional habits get you thinking so technically that you forget who this is about, eh? We're here to show up and step up for those who are most at risk.


----------



## DM Magic

jasper said:


> You first. That joke has gotten old.




That you think its a joke is cute. That you don't understand the gravity of the statement or the meaning behind it is appalling.


----------



## DM Magic

jasper said:


> Sexual Harassment goes all ways people. female to male, male to female, male to male, female to female, higher rank to lower, lower rank to higher.
> Sometimes what is someone’s joke it another harassment, aka depends on the receiver.
> Sometimes a joke is a harassment.
> I always take the report with a grain of salt and research both sides before I judge.  Harassment does not need to meet the legal requirement to be corrected.




Whataboutism and not all men, amirite?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Riley37 said:


> I am on neither end of the buyer-seller relationship in this scenario. I was hoping to get readers thinking about risk and price, on a facts-first, solve-the-problem, pragmatic basis, so that they would weigh the role of gender in risk...
> 
> ...for at least a few seconds, before the third rail of HOW DARE ANYONE MISTRUST ME! short-circuited their calculations.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, if we actually shift the risk ratios - by stepping up, as per the request - then we might make BetaCon safer for women, and that might in turn affect pool breadth. We're never gonna make AlphaCon safer for women; insure them at your own risk. Dunno if Lloyd's will touch you with their ten-foot pole.
> 
> You've already faced the core issues; you apply your own concerns, as you elucidated, to engage your compassion. Feel free to run your own parallel to the above scenario, starting with "I see someone in CSA cosplay" and going from there. Don't let your professional habits get you thinking so technically that you forget who this is about, eh? We're here to show up and step up for those who are most at risk.



I’m already taking behavioral self-improvement as a necessary given- I’m trying to ID other potential societal tools that could be used and- like any economist/lawyer/business analyst- whether those tools are legal and economically feasible.  IOW, would people pay the cost (in dollars or other exchanges) to use them?

An insurance model is not one I’ve seen in this area of discussion before, so it’s at least a novel idea to me.  It has potential.  The main weakness I’ve IDed at this point is that the _personal_ insurance model almost always makes victims pay $$$ in some way.  Since women are disproportionately the target of sex crimes, they would, in a sense, be pre-victimized.

If, OTOH, “anti-harassment insurance” is folded into all the other insurance coverage a venue or event must purchase, you broaden the base of who pays.  The cost gets passed on as a slightly higher price on the admission ticket.  And a wise venue/event operator would also take steps to increase _prevention _, which would lower their rates somewhat, but would increase personnel and infrastructure costs (more security, more monitors, more predictive algorithms, etc.), which would also somewhat boost ticket prices.

So the question comes back to what I asked a few pages ago: how much more are you willing to pay?


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’m already taking behavioral self-improvement as a necessary given




Well, yeah, YOU take that as necessary. I included you on the Betacon list. As you may have noticed, self-improvement is not a consensus position among participants in this thread.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And a wise venue/event operator would also take steps to increase _prevention _, which would lower their rates somewhat, but would increase personnel and infrastructure costs (more security, more monitors, more predictive algorithms, etc.), which would also somewhat boost ticket prices.




I like economic incentives. That said, what if the owner of a large building in NYC, offered its use, free, to GenCon, conditional on GenCon looking the other way? Profitable, but at a moral price. Consider the Miss Teen USA pageant. The man who bought it in 2005 said: "I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that." This is the outcome, for 15-year-old girls, when "money talks" is the swing factor.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> So the question comes back to what I asked a few pages ago: how much more are you willing to pay?




Registration fee has never been my decision point on whether to attend a con or not. When I'm flush, I'll pay any fee within the existing range; when I'm broke, I attend as a volunteer. If anti-harassment measures doubled the registration fee, that would not reduce my chance of attending.

Here's what else I would pay, to attend BetaCon: certain freedoms of personal expression. WHAT? Hear me out. (Or not; if you're here to denounce me as an SJW enemy of Freeze Peach, then you've got your pull-quote, take it and go wild.)

If I stare at cosplayers, point-blank, for extended durations, then at some point Con Security will say "Okay, buddy, that's too close, move along." If staff are quicker to intervene at Betacon, than at GenCon and PaizoCon, then by attending Betacon I lose some freedom to ogle. That's fine with me, since I wasn't exercising that privilege all the way to the limit anyways.

In a con game, the PCs defeat a bandit gang, and I suggest that the PCs let any surviving bandits go free but only for a price, heh heh, know what I mean... then what happens? If at Alphacon, that gets me a high-five; and Gencon or Paizocon, that might get me a blank stare, but doesn't get me immediately tossed from the game; while Betacon tosses me immediately, from the game AND the con, no second chance; then Betacon has less freedom of personal expression, but I'm happy to waive that particular expression, because I wasn't using it anyways.

If Alphacon has a special presentation with Fannon, and Betacon does not, then I'm willing to give up Fannon. Same with the opportunity to get a FATAL ("From Another Time Another Land") game on the con program. Same with Cards against Humanity. (I have never seen humanity win that game; it's rigged in favor of the cards.) If I wanna game with any of the people Morrus has banned in this thread, then that's a feature of AlphaCon, but that option won't be available at BetaCon, because they'll get tossed from Betacon much faster than they got tossed from EN World.

I'll go one further: see Charrua13's post, a page or two back, challenging men to step up. If you're a man and you're not ready to step up, then Betacon is not for you. Don't bother registering.

These measures, as a suite, affect the cost of security and troubleshooting personnel at Betacon. When the only men at the con, are men ready to step up, then participants tend to nip problems in the bud, long before con staff have to get involved. So in a way, it's kinda like attending as a volunteer: I'm willing to reduce the con's staff expenses, by doing my share of actively keeping the con inclusive.


----------



## Afrodyte

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to go through this entire thread and point out every post that pinged my threat assessment radar.

Oh wait. I tried that. And got a tidal wave of, "You're being mean/unfair!" as a result.

So, like I said, I'll stay home.


----------



## Riley37

Afrodyte said:


> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to go through this entire thread and point out every post that pinged my threat assessment radar.
> 
> Oh wait. I tried that. And got a tidal wave of, "You're being mean/unfair!" as a result.
> 
> So, like I said, I'll stay home.




On one hand, there's all the posts which pinged your threat assessment radar, before you started pointing them out. 

On another hand, you pointed them out, and they squealed in outrage, and at this point, there may be EN Worlders (and/or former EN Worlders blaming you for their bans) who would have an eye out for you, at Gencon or Paizocon, just *itching* to put you in your place. I imagine you are aware of how Gamergate treated Felicia Day and Brianna Wu, how Carl "Sargon" Benjamin treated Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

At this point, I could not in good faith recommend you attend any TRPG con, unless it provided a security detail for you, or equivalent countermeasures, at the con's expense.

I hate to admit that, but I enjoy your posts and I want you safe.

Elfcrusher, if you think I'm over-reacting, then can we agree on the larger picture and disagree on this one?


----------



## Afrodyte

Riley37 said:


> On one hand, there's all the posts which pinged your threat assessment radar, before you started pointing them out.
> 
> On another hand, you pointed them out, and they squealed in outrage, and at this point, there may be EN Worlders (and/or former EN Worlders blaming you for their bans) who would have an eye out for you, at Gencon or Paizocon, just *itching* to put you in your place. I imagine you are aware of how Gamergate treated Felicia Day and Brianna Wu, how Carl "Sargon" Benjamin treated Anita Sarkeesian, etc.
> 
> At this point, I could not in good faith recommend you attend any TRPG con, unless it provided a security detail for you, or equivalent countermeasures, at the con's expense.
> 
> I hate to admit that, but I enjoy your posts and I want you safe.




True. I probably shouldn't go without at least a male chaperone and make sure to stay within sight of him at all times. Which is a shame, as there is a very simple thing that can be done to make all that unnecessary (at least, for me).

As for creepers waiting to put me in my place, well, here's the thing. I think a major part of the problem is that most guys' threat detection equipment is only calibrated for the obvious creeps like the R Kellys, Donald Trumps and Harvey Weinsteins of the world but not for the Bill Cosbys, Louis CKs, Aziz Ansaris and Junot Diazes (to name a few high-profile instances), not to mention all those male feminists and male allies and progressive guys like Hugo Schwyzer who know the jargon and know the rhetoric, yet exploit, abuse, harass and assault women.

But, no, apparently the problem is not men who behave this way or men who contribute to an environment where men who do this feel confident they can behave this way without suffering any repercussions other than a bruised ego. The real problem is that I took the wrong tone with some of you who made comments that made me go, "Hmmm" and asked for information that would allow me to at least avoid contact with people who have said something that made me feel uncomfortable or to have something to give to the authorities if they did something to me or someone else while at a con. Yes, there was a humorous component to it, but it wasn't frivolous.

I've gotten more pushback for those cheeky one-sentence posts than people who've posted flat-out victim-blamey comments. Meanwhile, the thoughtful and measured things I've said didn't get much of a response despite taking a lot longer to compose, and I can count on one hand the number of times someone actually asked what would make women feel safe in a convention environment. I don't fault anyone for not thinking to ask, but it is chilling that so many people say they mean well aren't stopping to wonder why that is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I must say I agreed with Bari Weiss’ assessment of the Aziz Ansari bad date//harassment case.  That woman’s own texts to AA the next day indicate that- while some of her communication that night was verbal- a lot of it was nonverbal.  Mind readers, humans are not, and nonverbal communication is often going to be insufficient to make your point understood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I must say I agreed with Bari Weiss’ assessment of the Aziz Ansari bad date//harassment case.  That woman’s own texts to AA the next day indicate that- while some of her communication that night was verbal- a lot of it was nonverbal.  Mind readers, humans are not, and nonverbal communication is often going to be insufficient to make your point understood.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html




I think you want to rethink the context of my post and the nature of this comment.


----------



## Afrodyte

But if Aziz Ansari is a bad example, feel free to replace him with Woody Allen, Al Franken, James Franco, Dan Harmon, Anthony Anderson and Matt Lauer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Afrodyte said:


> I think you want to rethink the context of my post and the nature of this comment.



The (female) writer of the article quoted her texts:


> “Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” she responded. “You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.” He replied with an apology.




She later said:


> Aziz Ansari sounds as if he were aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.
> 
> But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say, “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say, “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying goodbye.
> 
> The single most distressing thing to me about this story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. The woman is merely acted upon.
> 
> All of this put me in mind of another article published this weekend, this one by the novelist and feminist icon Margaret Atwood. “My fundamental position is that women are human beings,” she writes. “Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we’re back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.”




So, no. I agree with Ms. Weiss’ assessment.  While she agrees that AA was aggressive, her conclusion is that what happened that night was a bad date, but not harassment.  He’s not a Cosby or Louis wannabe, at least not in this context.

Now, if _others_ come forward, I will reassess.  Especially if what is described starts to form a consistent pattern.  But at this point, I don’t consider him as “one of the bad ones.”


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The (female) writer of the article quoted her texts:
> 
> 
> She later said:
> 
> 
> So, no. I agree with Ms. Weiss’ assessment.  While she agrees that AA was aggressive, her conclusion is that what happened that night was a bad date, but not harassment.  He’s not a Cosby or Louis wannabe, at least not in this context.
> 
> Now, if _others_ come forward, I will reassess.  But at this point, I don’t consider him as “one of the bad ones.”




Why are you so invested in debunking a single example and ignoring the larger point?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Afrodyte said:


> But if Aziz Ansari is a bad example, feel free to replace him with Woody Allen, Al Franken, James Franco, Dan Harmon, Anthony Anderson and Matt Lauer.




Most of them are certainly deserving of the dishonor.  Not sure about Anderson, though- all I know of is a 2004 charge that was dismissed.

Let’s sub in _convicted_ (statutory) rapist Roman Polanski.


----------



## Sunseeker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most of them are certainly deserving of the dishonor.  Not sure about Anderson, though- all I know of is a 2004 charge that was dismissed.
> 
> Let’s sub in _convicted_ (statutory) rapist Roman Polanski.




Isn't that kinda like saying lets only talk about sexual assaults that have passed a legal standard of evidence?  Because it kinds sounds like some of those earlier arguments where people were saying they weren't willing to treat sexual assault accusations as legitimate unless a court had found guilt.


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most of them are certainly deserving of the dishonor.  Not sure about Anderson, though- all I know of is a 2004 charge that was dismissed.
> 
> Let’s sub in _convicted_ (statutory) rapist Roman Polanski.




I see. So does this mean I should listen to you instead of myself about who I should exercise caution around when it comes to my safety in an environment dominated by men I've never met?


----------



## Afrodyte

RedJenOSU said:


> I think the bigger problem at this point is that people seem so bent on pointing fingers and being right that the presumed subject on how to curb harassment within the RPG community specifically (and overall) is being ignored.




Four days later and it's still true.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Afrodyte said:


> Why are you so invested in debunking a single example and ignoring the larger point?




I’m not.  



Afrodyte said:


> I see. So does this mean I should listen to you instead of myself about who I should exercise caution around when it comes to my safety in an environment dominated by men I've never met?




Reasonable minds can disagree when presented with the same facts.

Nonetheless, along with Ms. Weiss and others, I think that if you include persons who are not clear examples on a list such as that, you open up a line of criticism of seeing bogeymen where they don’t exist, and rob the movement of power.

I’ve seen it from my own side of things: people who cry “RACISM!” when the facts don’t support it make it more difficult to pursue ones that are.  A few years ago, near where I live, there was a young black man killed while running from the police.  His mother claimed- on camera- that racist cops had shot her son in the back for no reason.

Except she wasn’t there, he wasn’t shot in the back, he was seen fleeing the scene of the crime and cornered, and he was armed.  According to the bodycam footage, he was facing the officers and refusing orders to drop the weapon.  Then he flinched...

Lots of blacks have unjustified contacts with the police.  I’ve had a couple myself, as has my Dad- his was particularly rich: accused of & detained for purse-snatching as he came out of church, still in his altar-sever’s raiment.  The hundreds of black eye-witnesses to his location didn’t matter as much as the little white lady victim who said he wasn’t the guy.

So when people reflexively and/or pathologically blame racism for this, that and th other, combatting th real deal becomes that much more difficult.

_THAT_ is what I _don’t_ want to happen to women’s efforts to minimize the risks of sexual predation.


----------



## Afrodyte

Charrua13 said:


> If we constantly evaluate our behaviors, as men, accordingly the metaconversation is less about "are these allegations true*?" than* "how are my actions perpetuating a society that is completely inhospitable to women?"




Quoting because maybe if a man says it, somebody will take it seriously.

* = edited by me for clarity


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’m not.
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable minds can disagree when presented with the same facts.
> 
> Nonetheless, along with Ms. Weiss and others, I think that if you include persons who are not clear examples on a list such as that, you open up a line of criticism of seeing bogeymen where they don’t exist, and rob the movement of power.
> 
> I’ve seen it from my own side of things: people who cry “RACISM!” when the facts don’t support it make it more difficult to pursue ones that are.  A few years ago, near where I live, there was a young black man killed while running from the police.  His mother claimed- on camera- that racist cops had shot her son in the back for no reason.
> 
> Except she wasn’t there, he wasn’t shot in the back, he was seen fleeing the scene of the crime and cornered, and he was armed.  According to the bodycam footage, he was facing the officers and refusing orders to drop the weapon.  Then he flinched...
> 
> Lots of blacks have unjustified contacts with the police.  I’ve had a couple myself, as has my Dad- his was particularly rich: accused of & detained for purse-snatching as he came out of church, still in his altar-sever’s raiment.  The hundreds of black eye-witnesses to his location didn’t matter as much as the little white lady victim who said he wasn’t the guy.
> 
> So when people reflexively and/or pathologically blame racism for this, that and th other, combatting th real deal becomes that much more difficult.
> 
> _THAT_ is what I _don’t_ want to happen to women’s efforts to minimize the risks of sexual predation.




This right here is part of the problem.


----------



## Afrodyte

Mouseferatu said:


> Calling you a "potential harasser" isn't a personal attack. As far as she's concerned, you are. As far as she's concerned, so am I. So is any man she doesn't know well and trust.
> 
> That's the entire point, and the entire problem in our hobby, and our society, that needs fixing. Like it or not, the sad fact is that women have very good reason to err on the side of being too suspicious than not suspicious enough. And men taking that personally, or fighting against efforts to solve the problem, just makes it worse.
> 
> The fact that you're treating that list of questions as an accusation, as a list of "harassing behaviors," when it was _clearly stated_ that it wasn't--but was, instead, merely a list of things that, if you've done, should inspire further self-reflection--is not helping your case.




Sharing this because maybe it'll sound better if a man says it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

shidaku said:


> Isn't that kinda like saying lets only talk about sexual assaults that have passed a legal standard of evidence?  Because it kinds sounds like some of those earlier arguments where people were saying they weren't willing to treat sexual assault accusations as legitimate unless a court had found guilt.




It’s about about dilution of rhetorical power.  I was once taught by one of the leading argument theorists in the world that you have to be careful you don’t argue against yourself.  If you do, you can give your opponents a window of opportunity in which they can dilute your efficacy.  Your movement will stall, falling short of its potential.

It may be that Anderson and Ansari are as bad as any of the others listed.  But the cases against both are *considerably* muddier, and thus, not as powerful a rhetorical tool.  But by including unclear exemplars of malfeasors alongside those who are _clearly_ in the wrong, it opens the doors to those who believe the bizarro flipside of reality- that 90% of accusations are false, not true; that evil women are just out to get men; that “#metoo” is just an extortion racket.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Afrodyte said:


> This right here is part of the problem.




You might want to clarify, in the context of my larger point.


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You might want to clarify, in the context of my larger point.




Why are you more invested in rhetoric than in safety?


----------



## Sunseeker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s about about dilution of rhetorical power.  I was once taught by one of the leading argument theorists in the world that you have to be careful you don’t argue against yourself.  If you do, you can gicpve your opponents a window of opportunity in which they can dilute your efficacy.  Your movement will stall, falling short of its potential.
> 
> It may be that Anderson and Ansari are as bad as any of the others listed.  But the cases against both are *considerably* muddier, and thus, not as powerful a rhetorical tool.  But by including unclear exemplars of malfeasors alongside those who are _clearly_ in the wrong, it opens the doors to those who believe the bizarro flipside of reality- that 90% of accusations are false, not true; that evil women are just out to get men; that “#metoo” is just an extortion racket.




Maybe.  But I'm not a "let 10 killers go free to save 1 innocent" sort.  I'm perfectly happy with the math if 1/10 bad guys turns out to be not so bad, or even good.  We still got 9 bad guys.  

I don't think getting into how women ought to be more clear with what they want is really helpful to the discussion of how to reduce harassment of women at conventions (or anywhere).  Because women really shouldn't _have_ to be more clear in what they want.  That's why so many people argue for affirmative consent.  Be it "Yes lets bone!" or "Yeah totally you can take my clothes off!"  It's not terribly burdensome on the actor in any given situation (because lets be honest, most sexual situations have an actor and an actee, even in M/M, M/F, F/F or other) to ensure that what they are doing is actively _wanted_ by the actee.


----------



## Afrodyte

Sepulchrave II said:


> I confess I’ve been following this thread with a kind of morbid, horrified interest. I don’t go to cons – they always sounded dreadful, honestly, with too many unhygienic, insufficiently socialized, sexually frustrated boy-men.
> 
> This thread has done little to disabuse me of those notions.
> 
> I’m also aware that these sorts of conversations tend to become proxy battlefields for ideological wars. I think it’s been very well-moderated: at times, this one must have been a tight rope to walk. I’m glad the thread wasn’t locked; it’s an important conversation, which unfortunately needs to be repeated until it sinks in and patterns of bad behaviour end.
> 
> Those of you who have decried the inevitable tyranny which would result from women’s voices being heard (and acted on) are reacting emotionally to a perceived loss of power. It is a wholly transparent reaction. It’s a _boring_ reaction. You might claim otherwise; I would just ask you to think harder about what you think, and why you think it.
> 
> Imagine for a moment that you have _never had power_. Try and make that empathetic leap. It is foundational to _making things better_.
> 
> And consider:
> 
> •	It is 2018
> •	Male hegemony is _actually, really_ collapsing for the first time since the Neolithic Revolution
> •	Sorry about that
> •	There might be some bumps along the way, but you’re going to have to get over it
> •	The arrow of history only points in one direction, here
> •	In fifty years you’ll be dead, society will have moved on, and no-one will care what you thought. While you’re here, why not help make things _better_?
> 
> 
> Cheers!




Sharing because when I say it, it means I hate men and want to punish all of them.


----------



## Dire Bare

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most of them are certainly deserving of the dishonor.  Not sure about Anderson, though- all I know of is a 2004 charge that was dismissed.
> 
> Let’s sub in _convicted_ (statutory) rapist Roman Polanski.




This is getting like a really uncomfortable fantasy football league. Sadly, tons of players to choose from here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There is a useful term for what this woman experienced on her night with Mr. Ansari. It’s called “bad sex.” It sucks.
> ~ Bari Weiss




Sharing this because maybe it'll sound better if a woman says it.


----------



## Afrodyte

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's recap shall we?  The point was raised that certain behaviors, while not in any way actually illegal, often serve as warning signs for potential bad behavior.
> 
> So, instead of simply recognizing that women have a fairly lengthy shopping list of behaviors that might serve as warning signs, and then possibly internalizing that list to make sure that you don't do these things, you immediately jump to the defense of poor, downtrodden right wing political groups.




Edited and shared because when I said it, it got ignored.


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sharing this because maybe it'll sound better if a woman says it.




"I hate being right all the time." --Dr. Ian Malcolm


----------



## Afrodyte

Mouseferatu said:


> Harassers represent a far larger proportion of men than terrorists, and victims of harassment represent an _enormously_ larger proportion of women than victims of terrorism, and our society has, for most of its history, utterly dismissed the idea that harassment is even a problem.
> 
> Plus, most discussions of terrorism aren't filled with people trying to downplay the victims' experiences and defend the perpetrators as misunderstood or not as bad as people claim.
> 
> Look, if you want to take offense at women choosing to be careful, and not trusting men until the men give them a reason to trust, that's on you. Nobody can stop you. But in so doing, you are neither giving them any reason to believe differently, nor contributing to the effort to solve the problem.




Edited for clarity and sharing because when I tried to demonstrate that, people got mad.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

shidaku said:


> Maybe.  But I'm not a "let 10 killers go free to save 1 innocent" sort.  I'm perfectly happy with the math if 1/10 bad guys turns out to be not so bad, or even good.  We still got 9 bad guys.




Not a big fan of the death penalty, precisely because the justice system- for all its safeguards- still gets it wrong too many times.



> I don't think getting into how women ought to be more clear with what they want is really helpful to the discussion of how to reduce harassment of women at conventions (or anywhere).



Clarity is part of the whole issue of consent.  A clear “No” removes the validity of an assertion of consent.


----------



## Afrodyte

Mouseferatu said:


> It's not a label. It's a scary truth women have to live with. "Lots of men are harassers, and many aspects of our society teach them that it's okay. I do not know this man. Therefore, he is _potentially_ a harasser."
> 
> (Note that word. "Potentially." They haven't labeled you anything, they merely don't know.)
> 
> "Labeling" implies that it's about you or me. It's not. It's not about us at all. It's about them not being safe. Instead of getting mad that they acknowledge they aren't safe--which is all considering strange men "potential harassers" is doing--let's focus on changing things so they are.




Sharing because when I say it, I'm intemperate.


----------



## Sunseeker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not a big fan of the death penalty, precisely because the justice system- for all its safeguards- still gets it wrong too many times.



The specifics of punishments on the law is different from the general approach.
I was stating my general approach because it's the same approach I apply to this subject.  We don't need to kill harassers, but if we're a little zealous of removing people from a con over harassment allegations I'm not going to sweat it.



> Clarity is part of the whole issue of consent.  A clear “No” removes the validity of an assertion of consent.



But not the point.  And a clear "NO" does nothing to actually stop harassers beforehand, and may do nothing to stop harassment, _or worse_ after the fact.

To take a point from game design: stopping harassment needs to be front-loaded.  We shouldn't be waiting for the level 20 capstone for things to work.


----------



## Umbran

I have often been told, what is required is a conversation on such things.

Rhetorical question, for you to consider - at this point, are you having a conversation?  Are you actually exchanging ideas at this point, actually listening?  Or are you really dug in about making your own points?

If you aren't really conversing, it might be time to call it for now, and come back later, after minds have had a chance to reset and be receptive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Afrodyte said:


> Why are you more invested in rhetoric than in safety?




I’m not.

Keeping the rhetoric neat and tight will lead to more protection.  It will let the war against harassment keep going at full steam.

Think of it like the Monty Python “Lumberjack song”: as long as the singer is going on about lumberjack stuff, everybody’s singing along.  When he gets into minor transvestism, voices start dropping out of the choir, until he finishes singing alone.

Including “iffy” dudes along with the bona fide predators costs you allies and resources.  It costs you time and effort convincing others they SHOULD be included when you don’t have the proof.

I have no special love of either Anderson or Ansari.  If more credible allegations surface, I’ll reassess them.  But with the case against one tossed, and the allegations against the other not rising to the level of harassment to my reading of the woman’s testimony and my understanding of the law, I don’t think they belong on a list such as you composed.

You are free to feel differently than do I.

I may harbor concerns that “_that white guy over there_” is a racist because of his rebel flag, while others may claim he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.  But I’m not going to *NAME* him in the same breath as David Duke as exemplars of white supremacists unless I have solid evidence.  It does the fight against racism more harm than good.

_And that costs lives._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

shidaku said:


> The specifics of punishments on the law is different from the general approach.
> I was stating my general approach because it's the same approach I apply to this subject.  We don't need to kill harassers, but if we're a little zealous of removing people from a con over harassment allegations I'm not going to sweat it.




If you look back through this thread, you’ll note that I do not at any point support the legalistic approach to con elections and the like.  Quite the opposite, I argued against it, usually in the form of the “accused baby sitter” scenario.




> But not the point.  And a clear "NO" does nothing to actually stop harassers beforehand, and may do nothing to stop harassment, _or worse_ after the fact.




Laws and rules rarely prevent anything.  People do. 

And a “No” at the very least gives the ignorant harasser- one who does not realize that his actions are inappropriate, or why- notice thereof.  And that might actually prevent some situations from getting worse.


----------



## Umbran

Folks, I know you both feel strongly about this - but it is time to back off, and make some breathing space.  Thanks.


----------



## Afrodyte

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’m not.
> 
> Keeping the rhetoric neat and tight will lead to more protection.  It will let the war against harassment keep going at full steam.
> 
> Think of it like the Monty Python “Lumberjack song”: as long as the singer is going on about lumberjack stuff, everybody’s singing along.  When he gets into minor transvestism, voices start dropping out of the choir, until he finishes singing alone.
> 
> Including “iffy” dudes along with the bona fide predators costs you allies and resources.  It costs you time and effort convincing others they SHOULD be included when you don’t have the proof.
> 
> I have no special love of either Anderson or Ansari.  If more credible allegations surface, I’ll reassess them.  But with the case against one tossed, and the allegations against the other not rising to the level of harassment to my reading of the woman’s testimony and my understanding of the law, I don’t think they belong on a list such as you composed.
> 
> You are free to feel differently than do I.
> 
> I may harbor concerns that “_that white guy over there_” is a racist because of his rebel flag, while others may claim he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.  But I’m not going to *NAME* him in the same breath as David Duke as exemplars of white supremacists unless I have solid evidence.  It does the fight against racism more harm than good.
> 
> _And that costs lives._




I'm here to address what needs to happen to make women safe in a convention environment. I don't need your help to communicate that. And the fact that you keep pushing it by talking over me and adopting this, "Let me tell you how to use persuasive logic" stance is part of the problem, and you don't even see why. On top of that, you're an admin, so I can't even block you like I should have pages ago. How am I supposed to be able to trust that you will take harassment and other behaviors seriously when you can't even participate in a low-stakes conversation without getting paternalistic about it when my response is not, I dunno, appropriately grateful for the bare minimum efforts I've seen from men in this thread and elsewhere?

If you're serious about making a safe environment for women, I need you to actively listen and step in when men come into the thread to talk over women, belittle women, threaten women, make gross and inappropriate comments toward women, dismiss women's concerns about our safety or make excuses for men's behavior, which happens every single time that harassment, sexual assault, misogyny and patriarchy are so much as obliquely alluded to on these forums. The only reason why I haven't given up and deleted my account is because everywhere else is worse.


----------



## Afrodyte

Previous post cross-posted while Umbran made mod note.


----------



## Particle_Man

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Clarity is part of the whole issue of consent.  A clear “No” removes the validity of an assertion of consent.




I believe the "don't rape people" posters I saw said not only "No means NO" but also "No Yes means NO" as in "Lack of an enthusiastic Yes means NO".  So while Aziz Ansari's antics didn't get him the conviction and "Go Directly to Jail, do not collect $200" card, I sure wouldn't want to go on a date with him were I a woman, and as a woman or as a man would feel perfectly ok with him being banned from Cons.  Reading nonverbal cues does not require telepathy in most cases, and if for whatever reason you are that bad at it (and wow, Aziz Ansari is bad at it), then it is your responsibility either to get express and clear verbal permission or to back off.

Grace would probably feel better about going to a Con if she knew that Aziz Ansari would not be there. I would rather have Grace there than him.

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Particle_Man said:


> Grace would probably feel better about going to a Con if she knew that Aziz Ansari would not be there. I would rather have Grace there than him.




I’m here agreeing with you, 100%.

But I wasn’t talking about ejecting him from a con, I was talking about:


> I think a major part of the problem is that most guys' threat detection equipment is only calibrated for the obvious creeps like the R Kellys, Donald Trumps and Harvey Weinsteins of the world but not for the Bill Cosbys, Louis CKs, Aziz Ansaris and Junot Diazes (to name a few high-profile instances), not to mention all those male feminists and male allies and progressive guys like Hugo Schwyzer who know the jargon and know the rhetoric, yet exploit, abuse, harass and assault women.




I don’t think he belongs on that list.

And as for:


> https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355




It was to that exact piece to which Ms. Weiss responded in the story I linked to and quoted above, reposted below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html

I agree with her assessment of the facts as reported.  There is no requirement that anyone else do likewise.  I also agree that my opinion thereof has zero meaning to someone who in that moment must decide wether or not to associate with him.

I simply fear that, with the facts thus far presented, lumping him in with Cosby et alia is a tactical mistake.

***

That said, I’m done here too.  I’ll continue my efforts to improve things elsewhere.


----------



## Gradine

Particle_Man said:


> I believe the "don't rape people" posters I saw said not only "No means NO" but also "No Yes means NO" as in "Lack of an enthusiastic Yes means NO".  So while Aziz Ansari's antics didn't get him the conviction and "Go Directly to Jail, do not collect $200" card, I sure wouldn't want to go on a date with him were I a woman, and as a woman or as a man would feel perfectly ok with him being banned from Cons.  Reading nonverbal cues does not require telepathy in most cases, and if for whatever reason you are that bad at it (and wow, Aziz Ansari is bad at it), then it is your responsibility either to get express and clear verbal permission or to back off.
> 
> Grace would probably feel better about going to a Con if she knew that Aziz Ansari would not be there. I would rather have Grace there than him.
> 
> https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355




There's a relevant tweet that is probably too X-rated for this board, but it involves a very specific spot on their bodies straight men typically do not like to be touched, and it's a great argument that men actually _*do*_ understand concepts like affirmative and continual consent, but only act confused when it's about women's bodies. The absence of no is not a yes, it is _*extraordinarily*_ easy to tell the difference in the moment, and there's simply no excuse for anyone to not get that anymore. Not that there ever was.

I'll also take this moment to kindly ask some of the other men in the room to take your arguments about appropriate tone or rhetoric or tactics and shove them in the exact part of the body you least like to be touched. They really do not have any place in this conversation. They are, in fact, condescending and paternalistic and, ultimately, misogynistic. If you are a cis male, the odds  that harassment is anywhere close to kind of regular concern for us than it is for basically any and every other gender are so low that the best we can possibly hope to contribute this discussion is listen to the people who ARE impacted back it, LISTEN to them, and amplify their voices.

Oh, and collect our own.

Same goes for any intimation that this conversation requires all or even just multiple sides to be given equal weight, space, or consideration. 

Perhaps conversation is the wrong term for what our community needs right now. Maybe what we really need to do is just shut our ignorant asses up and learn something for once.


----------



## Riley37

Afrodyte said:


> As for creepers waiting to put me in my place, well, here's the thing. I think a major part of the problem is that most guys' threat detection equipment is only calibrated for the obvious creeps <snipped: examples> but not for the <snipped: examples>, not to mention all those male feminists and male allies and progressive guys <snipped: example> who know the jargon and know the rhetoric, yet exploit, abuse, harass and assault women.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I must say I agreed with Bari Weiss’ assessment of the Aziz Ansari bad date//harassment case. <snipped: reasons why>




DannyAlcatraz, you have my respect; often, also, my agreement. In this particular case, though...

It might be useful to FIRST recognize the point, that most guys' threat detection equipment is calibrated more for one set of hazards, than for another... and THEN raise any questions about any of the specific examples.

I'm not arguing the weight of that particular example. I'm saying that when a woman makes a point, and provides several examples; and then a man replies with JUST a counter to one of the examples, without any commentary of the point which that example supported; then that is all too similar, to the behavior of men who attack whatever they see as a weak link, as a way of dodging the point, and drowning out the point with a debate over that one particular example.

You and AfroDyte have both provided alternate possible examples, in place of the one you questioned. Awesome. Set aside that one example, indefinitely. In the morning, here's my advice. (Take with multiple grains of salt, considering the history of white dudes trying to advise one person of color on how to engage with another). Try this: respond to the statement about the calibration of most guys' threat detection equipment. Agree, disagree, nuance, whatever - as long as you recognize the topic of the calibration of most guys' threat detection equipment.

Extrapolating, into one of the many possible specific implications of that general point: if AfroDyte attended a con, and that con provided some security in the hopes of making her participation safer, and that security took the form of a *male* chaperone, and that man's threat detection equipment is calibrated in a way which fails to recognize certain threats... then that could leave certain security vulnerabilities wide open, and possibly cause the male chaperone's effect on the outcome to become worse than useless.

In such a scenario, if he says "Ma'am, I'm the expert here, I've scanned for threats, I see none, therefore there are none" - and he's ignoring the possibility that maybe *her* equipment, calibrated differently, picks up *different* threats, from different directions or at different levels - then how well is that gonna work out? Will she feel safer, and will she *be* safer, with a chaperone who doesn't take her observations seriously, than she would be with no con-provided support at all?

If the con offered protection in the form of a dude, particularly a dude in a suit, possibly armed or otherwise primed for violence, that might be a fundamental error from the get-go. It might be better to ask something along the lines of: "You've expressed disinterest in attending. If we can give you a good reason to change your mind, then we're interested in how we might do so. Do you see something we could do? or something we could do differently?"

Anyways, that was a speculative extrapolation, into one of many possible implications of the point. I dunno whether that's where AfroDyte was going. I could lose my Man Card if I asked in a way which admitted ignorance, and offered willingness to learn from a woman. In the meantime, the question of threat detection equipment calibration, is a topic worth exploring. See also, something you said about the relative expertise of prey, in identifying predators; but again, Iunno if that's where she was going. Wanna find out?


----------



## Hussar

Afrodyte said:


> Why are you more invested in rhetoric than in safety?




Hang on a tick here.  Let's not go picking fights where none are needed.  Disagreement is fine.  Discussion is fine.  There's no reason that points cannot be discussed.  And, frankly, DannyA is making a pretty darn good point here.  We've SEEN in this thread alone, numerous posts about how we need to be absolutely sure, how we need this incredibly high standard before we believe anything, so on and so forth.

It's ludicrous, but, people apparently actually believe this.  You damage your own credibility when you start including examples that fit into their story.  "See, look, [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] isn't actually interested in protecting women or herself, she just wants to hate on men!  We don't have to listen to her!"  

Rhetoric MATTERS.  How the point is explained matters.  We've seen people in this thread (never minding other places) leap at any and all excuses to bury the lead in this issue.  Giving them more ammunition is not helping anyone.

I think the only thing that needs really to be said here is, be aware of your words.  You have everyone's attention in this thread.  You certainly have mine.  I'm pretty willing to ignore points for the larger issue because I'm bright enough not to get wrapped up in minutia (usually).  But, that minutia just feeds the trolls.  Don't feed the trolls is what I'm trying to say I guess.


----------



## Lylandra

I get you, Hussar. Rhetoric does matter per se. But what Afrodyte tries to point out is the oftentimes existing bias between male rhetoric and female rhetoric. That, for example, when a man says something that could be interpreted as "aggressive", he's instead seen as assertive, certain of his point, or, worse, "just being a man". Whereas when a woman uses the same tone and rhetoric, she's seen as hysterical, bitchy, or just an outright dragon. Because, "usually women are so much more kind, polite, caring etc then men" so if a woman speaks up "loudly", she's acting against her role. 

I know that this holds true more in face-to-face environments, whereas online debates are often no more than mere black-on-white (or inversed) text. Still she identified as a woman. And from what I read, Afrodyte is done with playing the "nice little woman". She's (rightfully) upset about the fact that there are many victim-blaming posts or posts filled with micro-misogyny in this thread that were not being called out while her arguments were dissected. She's also under the impression that male-identifying posters are being less challenged and have it far easier being listened to. 

And I understand her. Because being a woman who's active online, who has a mind of her own and who gets vocal from time to time can be hard. 

That being said, I still think that ENWorld is one of the best places to discuss my/our hobby, including systemic problems in our community. And I'm really thankful for [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] and the other mods to keep it this civil. 
(Because, honestly, other, more general gaming forums oftentimes look as if they're the little brethren of /b )


----------



## Hussar

Oh, hey, I get the frustration.  Believe me.  While I certainly haven't been subject to sexual harassment, my years of living as an expat (going on 20 years now) have certainly led to me being on the receiving end of  more than my share of harassing behavior.  And it can get really hard to separate out.

My point is just that we shouldn't be flinging poo at everyone and anyone.  That's not constructive.  And, let's be honest here, that particular example probably wasn't that great of one, which is all [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] was trying to say.  

Deep breaths all the way around are probably a good idea.


----------



## Riley37

Lylandra said:


> That being said, I still think that ENWorld is one of the best places to discuss my/our hobby, including systemic problems in our community. And I'm really thankful for [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] and the other mods to keep it this civil.




On one hand, I won't discourage gratitude. As a general rule.

On another hand, here are two questions with a significant difference:
"Should we reduce harassment at cons? If so, how?"

If that's the question, then all of the answers along the lines "No, everything's fine, boys will be boys, that's just how cons work, we shouldn't get involved this side of a guilty verdict on a criminal charge" are fair and valid answers to the first half of the question, as the question was asked. Those answers tend to negate the second half.

If the question is "Stipulating that we want to reduce harassment at cons, how can we accomplish that goal?" then those answers are NOT appropriate nor helpful to the question as asked.

The volume of such answers, accepted as valid positions for debate and discussion, tells me that this thread is answering the first question, and mostly the first half of the first question.


----------



## Afrodyte

I'd feel safer at a clothes-optional BDSM event full of people I've never met or interacted with than the vast majority of the men commenting on this thread. And they actually beat people.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Afrodyte said:


> I'd feel safer at a clothes-optional BDSM event full of people I've never met or interacted with than the vast majority of the men commenting on this thread. And they actually beat people.




This is the crux of the matter and the onus is to change the circumstances so that this person does not need to feel this way.


----------



## jasper

....Sexual Harassment goes all ways people. female to male, male to female, male to male, female to female, higher rank to lower, lower rank to higher.
 Sometimes what is someone’s joke it another harassment, aka depends on the receiver. 
 Sometimes a joke is a harassment. 
 I always take the report with a grain of salt and research both sides before I judge. Harassment does not need to meet the legal requirement to be corrected..........



DM Magic said:


> Whataboutism and not all men, amirite?



NO YOU ARE WRONG SIR!
totally not cool and so far off the mark you are on the other side of the freaking world.
Thanksgiving Morning Fort Ord California 1983. I am an Army Cook. On the Staff E-6 male Pushing paperwork in the back. On the floor say 8 people with me being the only MALE on the floor. E-5 Female AKA the BOSS, my superior, etc. Comes up with me with a "Male Sexual Organ" made out of a Turkey neck and other parts. LET ME REPEAT THAT FOR THE SLOW ONES. MY BOSS MADE A DILDO OUT OF TURKEY PARTS.  
She asks if my member is that size and what would I do if was. Then most of the rest of crew (all female) laughed. And made catty comments the rest of the shift. 
So please just tell me Sexual harassment just goes one way. 
So please just tell me not all men to dismiss the topic.

Now I would insult you. But I just need "you legal address, SSN, phone, and current picture"


----------



## Jeanneliza

jasper said:


> ....Sexual Harassment goes all ways people. female to male, male to female, male to male, female to female, higher rank to lower, lower rank to higher.
> Sometimes what is someone’s joke it another harassment, aka depends on the receiver.
> Sometimes a joke is a harassment.
> I always take the report with a grain of salt and research both sides before I judge. Harassment does not need to meet the legal requirement to be corrected..........
> 
> 
> NO YOU ARE WRONG SIR!
> totally not cool and so far off the mark you are on the other side of the freaking world.
> Thanksgiving Morning Fort Ord California 1983. I am an Army Cook. On the Staff E-6 male Pushing paperwork in the back. On the floor say 8 people with me being the only MALE on the floor. E-5 Female AKA the BOSS, my superior, etc. Comes up with me with a "Male Sexual Organ" made out of a Turkey neck and other parts. LET ME REPEAT THAT FOR THE SLOW ONES. MY BOSS MADE A DILDO OUT OF TURKEY PARTS.
> She asks if my member is that size and what would I do if was. Then most of the rest of crew (all female) laughed. And made catty comments the rest of the shift.
> So please just tell me Sexual harassment just goes one way.
> So please just tell me not all men to dismiss the topic.
> 
> Now I would insult you. But I just need "you legal address, SSN, phone, and current picture"




I am sorry you had to experience that. No one should be demeaned or humiliated ever. No one should ever required to feel discomfort in their place or work or places of leisure.

But I have to ask, how many times has this happened to you in your life? You cited an instance back in 1983. ONE instance. Were you ever fired from a job for refusing an advance from a boss? if so that sucks, and it is damned hard to prove, especially in at will employment states.
Have you ever gone to the appropriate authorities with a complaint? How did they treat you when you did?
What other places have you been that you would like to see addressed here where this is soooo common that every man you speak to has a similar or worse story? 

See, while I understand men have been and can be harassed, men can be and have been assaulted, here we need to address the scale. You cited an instance, I can't cite here every instance I have experienced something worse because ( I did the math this morning) I have lived 3237 weeks. I could list 3237 personal experiences of being harassed or assaulted or worse.

You seem to be under the mis-perception that because the issue of women being harassed here and we aren't being balanced about recognizing men too can suffer, have suffered, and probably will suffer (see Buddhism) that we don't believe they DO suffer. You would be wrong.

But again we come back to scale. And let me put this here for you. In a society where trying to address the daily harassment of women and other marginalized groups, to open societies eyes to what they have failed to recognize and address, gets shouted down, who exactly do you think are going to address the lesser scale harassment of the gender that wields most of the power to make corrections? Or more bluntly, in a society who doesn't care about the suffering of those who can't defend themselves, who do you think should care more about the suffering of those who would be perceived as more ABLE to protect themselves? See as long as society isn't addressing the MASSIVE issue of harassment, assault and murder of the weak, do you think they are going to address the same issues among the strong more quickly?
Reality is, once changes are made you will be safer as well. But as long as you don't address the pandemic, the epidemic will go untreated.


----------



## Sunseeker

Afrodyte said:


> I'd feel safer at a clothes-optional BDSM event full of people I've never met or interacted with than the vast majority of the men commenting on this thread. And they actually beat people.




But they "beat people" with affirmative consent.  It's pretty much the basis for BDSM.


----------



## Afrodyte

shidaku said:


> But they "beat people" with affirmative consent.  It's pretty much the basis for BDSM.




I know.


----------



## Umbran

jasper said:


> So please just tell me Sexual harassment just goes one way.




It doesn't just go all one way.

But, there are several topics of social justice (which I won't go into directly, because they are not relevant to gaming, specifically) in which the issue does apply to people of many demographics, but it applies *much* more to one than others.  Yes, men get sexually harrassed.  But women are harrassed *far* more frequently.  That imbalance speaks to a difference in the causes of harrassment, and the difference in causes suggest different approachs to action will be effective.


----------



## Guest 6801328

jasper said:


> totally not cool and so far off the mark you are on the other side of the freaking world.
> Thanksgiving Morning Fort Ord California 1983. I am an Army Cook. On the Staff E-6 male Pushing paperwork in the back. On the floor say 8 people with me being the only MALE on the floor. E-5 Female AKA the BOSS, my superior, etc. Comes up with me with a "Male Sexual Organ" made out of a Turkey neck and other parts. LET ME REPEAT THAT FOR THE SLOW ONES. MY BOSS MADE A DILDO OUT OF TURKEY PARTS.
> She asks if my member is that size and what would I do if was. Then most of the rest of crew (all female) laughed. And made catty comments the rest of the shift.
> So please just tell me Sexual harassment just goes one way.
> So please just tell me not all men to dismiss the topic.




They were just joking.  Don't you have a sense of humor?  Don't be so frigid.

You should be flattered; they obviously like(d) you.

Besides, I would have to hear their side of the story first.  I haven't seen anybody else complain about them.  Maybe you simply have a vendetta against this E5 and are trying to ruin her career.  

Why didn't you make a VHS or cassette recording? (1983 FTW!)

 In fact you should be ashamed for posting this without a court of law proving it happened.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I've never felt scared when I've been the recipient of unwanted sexual comments or touching from women. At worst, embarrassed. I have, at times, felt scared when they came from men.

I appreciate this might be different in a situation where women outnumber men and/or are in positions of authority but this is quite unlikely in the world of roleplaying.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Elfcrusher said:


> They were just joking.  Don't you have a sense of humor?  Don't be so frigid.
> 
> You should be flattered; they obviously like(d) you.
> 
> Besides, I would have to hear their side of the story first.  I haven't seen anybody else complain about them.  Maybe you simply have a vendetta against this E5 and are trying to ruin her career.
> 
> Why didn't you make a VHS or cassette recording? (1983 FTW!)
> 
> In fact you should be ashamed for posting this without a court of law proving it happened.




I am not sure our friend here Jasper wasn't the one just joking, since his only response to my carefully considered post addressing his experience was to LAUGH at me. No indication what he found funny.


----------



## Aldarc

Afrodyte said:


> I'd feel safer at a clothes-optional BDSM event full of people I've never met or interacted with than the vast majority of the men commenting on this thread. And they actually beat people.



A number of my close female friends have voiced similar comments. One said that she felt safer and less harassed at San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair than San Diego's ComicCon. Likewise, another even told me that they received far more cringeworthy messages from guys on OKCupid than they ever did on FetLife. And I do think that it's because respecting "consent" and personal boundaries play HUGE roles in BDSM culture.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Jeanneliza said:


> I am sorry you had to experience that. No one should be demeaned or humiliated ever. No one should ever required to feel discomfort in their place or work or places of leisure.
> 
> But I have to ask, how many times has this happened to you in your life? You cited an instance back in 1983. ONE instance. Were you ever fired from a job for refusing an advance from a boss? if so that sucks, and it is damned hard to prove, especially in at will employment states.
> Have you ever gone to the appropriate authorities with a complaint? How did they treat you when you did?
> What other places have you been that you would like to see addressed here where this is soooo common that every man you speak to has a similar or worse story?
> 
> See, while I understand men have been and can be harassed, men can be and have been assaulted, here we need to address the scale. You cited an instance, I can't cite here every instance I have experienced something worse because ( I did the math this morning) I have lived 3237 weeks. I could list 3237 personal experiences of being harassed or assaulted or worse.
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-perception that because the issue of women being harassed here and we aren't being balanced about recognizing men too can suffer, have suffered, and probably will suffer (see Buddhism) that we don't believe they DO suffer. You would be wrong.
> 
> But again we come back to scale. And let me put this here for you. In a society where trying to address the daily harassment of women and other marginalized groups, to open societies eyes to what they have failed to recognize and address, gets shouted down, who exactly do you think are going to address the lesser scale harassment of the gender that wields most of the power to make corrections? Or more bluntly, in a society who doesn't care about the suffering of those who can't defend themselves, who do you think should care more about the suffering of those who would be perceived as more ABLE to protect themselves? See as long as society isn't addressing the MASSIVE issue of harassment, assault and murder of the weak, do you think they are going to address the same issues among the strong more quickly?
> Reality is, once changes are made you will be safer as well. But as long as you don't address the pandemic, the epidemic will go untreated.




After my carefully worded response one of you guys want to tell me what I said that was so out of line that Jasper, the gentleman I was responding to found it funny? His only reaction was to laugh.
Is it because I was duped into believing a fake sob story?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RedJenOSU

So we're still talking about eliminating harassment in the context of the RPG hobby space right?


----------



## Afrodyte

RedJenOSU said:


> So we're still talking about eliminating harassment in the context of the RPG hobby space right?




I'm not sure. For a while there I thought the real topic was rhetoric. Or whether Aziz Ansari or Anthony Anderson are folks women would justifiably be cautious around. Or something.


----------



## billd91

Aldarc said:


> A number of my close female friends have voiced similar comments. One said that she felt safer and less harassed at San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair than San Diego's ComicCon. Likewise, another even told me that they received far more cringeworthy messages from guys on OKCupid than they ever did on FetLife. And I do think that it's because respecting "consent" and personal boundaries play HUGE roles in BDSM culture.




The BDSM community focuses on that, in no small part, because they have to in order to thrive as they push beyond what polite society would consider normal boundaries. If they didn't build in their own, clearer boundaries and aggressively defend them, I'm sure they'd fracture because they'd be swamped with bad actors who thought they could get away with literally anything.

Bringing this back around, I think we need to do the same thing. Set up a clear boundary (which a lot of cons kind of do and are getting better at in their harassment statements) and aggressively defend them - and that means taking a tough line on the accused - maybe not to the point of a boot and ban depending on the nature of the complaint, but definitely discussion and closer monitoring.


----------



## Jeanneliza

lowkey13 said:


> In order?
> 
> 1. Hit the wrong button; meant to hit XP.
> 2. Didn't mean to hit anything at all, it was an accident.
> 3. Has a weird sense of humor that I don't see?
> 4. Dunno ... being a jerk. In which case, his jerkiness is your reward (laughs count for XP).
> 
> 
> EDIT- the lesson, IMO, is that either it's an accident or misunderstanding, in which case it's not worth stressing about, or it's something else, in which case enjoy the bonus. Either way, you had a good response.




K, I was just wondering, but until I know if it was his intent to humiliate me I'll just back out of the conversation.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## DM Magic

Jeanneliza said:


> I am sorry you had to experience that. No one should be demeaned or humiliated ever. No one should ever required to feel discomfort in their place or work or places of leisure.
> 
> But I have to ask, how many times has this happened to you in your life? You cited an instance back in 1983. ONE instance. Were you ever fired from a job for refusing an advance from a boss? if so that sucks, and it is damned hard to prove, especially in at will employment states.
> Have you ever gone to the appropriate authorities with a complaint? How did they treat you when you did?
> What other places have you been that you would like to see addressed here where this is soooo common that every man you speak to has a similar or worse story?
> 
> See, while I understand men have been and can be harassed, men can be and have been assaulted, here we need to address the scale. You cited an instance, I can't cite here every instance I have experienced something worse because ( I did the math this morning) I have lived 3237 weeks. I could list 3237 personal experiences of being harassed or assaulted or worse.
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-perception that because the issue of women being harassed here and we aren't being balanced about recognizing men too can suffer, have suffered, and probably will suffer (see Buddhism) that we don't believe they DO suffer. You would be wrong.
> 
> But again we come back to scale. And let me put this here for you. In a society where trying to address the daily harassment of women and other marginalized groups, to open societies eyes to what they have failed to recognize and address, gets shouted down, who exactly do you think are going to address the lesser scale harassment of the gender that wields most of the power to make corrections? Or more bluntly, in a society who doesn't care about the suffering of those who can't defend themselves, who do you think should care more about the suffering of those who would be perceived as more ABLE to protect themselves? See as long as society isn't addressing the MASSIVE issue of harassment, assault and murder of the weak, do you think they are going to address the same issues among the strong more quickly?
> Reality is, once changes are made you will be safer as well. But as long as you don't address the pandemic, the epidemic will go untreated.




THIS. SO MUCH THIS.


----------



## kenmarable

RedJenOSU said:


> So we're still talking about eliminating harassment in the context of the RPG hobby space right?




Agreed. There's been some good discussion, but that signal has been buried in a lot of noise and distractions on however many pages this thread has been (I'm not sure the exact number because quite a few from my block list showed up especially early on as they usually do).

So, we're gamers and gamers like rules. So how about these ground rules to avoid distractions as much as possible. Prepare as I cast _Wall of Text!_


*1)* The current status quo is that there is a lot of sexual harassment at conventions in the gaming community. (Online harassment is another massive problem, but let's focus on conventions and maybe smaller gatherings like store events first. Online harassment may be more difficult to address and some of us might learn a few things working through conventions first.)

*2)* It is not 100% men harassing women, but that makes up such a vast majority of it that this gendered aspect is fundamental to the problem and cannot be ignored. It must be considered in diagnosing and fixing the problem. However, the best fix(es) should help reduce all harassment: against women, men, young, old, LGBTQ, all religions, non-religious, etc. 

*3)* We want to reduce harassment as close to zero as humanly possible so that all attendees feel safe at conventions and events.

*4)* We want to have a conversation to figure out and educate us on how to achieve #3. If you disagree with #1-3, then you are not part of this conversation and should be ignored. You are having a different conversation.

*5)* Distractions from this conversation support the status quo of #1 and should be ignored.

Not as fundamental, but I think still important:

*6)* Actual examples of harassment are more important than hypotheticals. Hypotheticals aren't necessarily a Distraction, but they can come close. At the very least, actual examples (and there are SO many out there) weigh far more importantly than hypotheticals.

*7)* However, specific examples should be used to further our goal of #3. Nitpicking and debating details of specific cases that do not inform the larger goal of #3 are Distractions. This conversation is not about deciding whether any particular instance was harassment or not. This conversation is about how to help attendees feel safe and be free from harassment.

*8)* Courts have nothing to do with this and are a Distraction. Something does not have to be illegal to be against a convention policy (harassment or otherwise). Conventions can ban or otherwise punish attendees for a wide variety of behaviors that do not rise to the level of a crime. Harassment is no different.

*9)* Worries about false accusations beyond the same due diligence the convention would put into investigating reports of theft, physical assault, etc. are a Distraction. Of course, a basic level of due diligence from convention staff is necessary, but convention staff are also not expected to have a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie protagonist level of detective skills for other policy violations, and the same is true for harassment. A vendor reporting a theft is presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise, and an attendee reporting harassment is similarly presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise.


How does that sound? Do people agree with those and want to have this conversation? (I'm especially interested to hear from the women in this thread if they think this would help. I could be wrong.) There may be more that we agree to, but at the very least I'm comfortable saying debating these is a different conversation and one that I (and I get the feeling many others) are no longer interested in having.

So that being said - *How can we do better?*

Thankfully, others have addressed this before! As I posted earlier but it lead to a Distraction, author Jim Hines even compiled a *"SF/F Convention Harassment Policy Starter Kit"* that also relies heavily on the *Geek Feminism Wiki sample harassment policies*. If someone has better examples/tutorials, please speak up and share them! These are just the ones I know about that work as solid introductions. They aren't written in stone. It's just counterproductive to start with nothing when others have done a lot of work already.

How about we do one of those "Let's Read X" discussions and make sure we understand each point. Maybe even take something like, say *Gen Con's policies*, as a case study to see how well they handle these issues. Let's stop talking abstract points and nitpicking distractions. In my experience, going through a concrete example can help immensely. *So if you want to be part of the conversation some of us want to have, go read some of those links and let's talk details.* If you want to continue with a different conversation, have fun. But at this point this is the only conversation that I am interested in having and see as being constructive.

_Edit to add: If it would make more sense to jettison all these pages of Distraction and instead start a new thread, I'm fine with that._


----------



## Gradine

lowkey13 said:


> Are we?
> 
> Because that would require a conversation with open minds and, you know, "talking." Which seems in short supply with some of the people that joined this conversation late.




And the award for most ironic statement in this thread in the last 24 hours goes too...



> And part of that change is communication. I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of the work starts with a level of civil discourse; of being able to hear what other people are saying, and trying to respond. No, you can't persuade the "1% Bikers" of the world on a forum like this; but others? Maybe you can persuade them. Not immediately, but over time. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the hobby won't change immediately.*




This is not an issue that requires two-way communication. People should not have to be spoken to nicely in order to get on board with an idea like "sexual harassment is bad, maybe we should do something about that"; either they are already on board, or they aren't, and if they aren't they are a part of the problem. They do not deserve a cookie and juice box just because they want to stubbornly hold on to their privilege to not have to think about it too hard, and need to have their hands held just to get to a place of basic ing human decency.

What you and @_*Dannyalcatraz*_ and others in this thread are doing is tone policing, plain and simple, and as is always the case when somebody who doesn't have to deal with this kind of garbage on a daily basis tries to insist on the "appropriate" way to have a conversation about it with people who _do_ have to deal with it on a daily basis, it is inevitably BS nonsense. @_*Afrodyte*_ is hardly the first person on this thread who has used any kind of sarcasm or pulled out a contentious example in order to make a point. She is the first person who has explicitly identified as female to do so, however. And the first person to have at least three separate dudes get on her case and try to explain to her why it's not the "proper" way to do things. 

I wonder if that's a coincidence?

If, at the next convention, a large group of people decide to go around harassing and assaulting everyone who doesn't like Gnome Paladins, and everybody else just turns a blind eye to it, we'll let _you_ be the expert on how to go about addressing this problem. Until then, you are trying to make arguments from a position of authority you do not have.

Or better yet, why don't _you_ do the work handing out the cookies and juice boxes and holding people's hands across the finish line towards basic human decency, since that seems to within your wheelhouse, and let the folks who have completely justifiable anger, hurt, frustration, and disgust, express those things in whatever manner they so choose, and see who responds better to which?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine

> Or better yet, why don't _you_ do the work handing out the cookies and juice boxes and holding people's hands across the finish line towards basic human decency, since that seems to within your wheelhouse, and let the folks who have completely justifiable anger, hurt, frustration, and disgust, express those things in whatever manner they so choose, and see who responds better to which?




Lest my glibness ruin the point of this in particular, I want [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13 and everyone else to know that this is an extremely serious point I'm trying to make.

If you do, seriously and legitimately, believe that there is a _*better *_way to solve the problem and get more people on the right side, why aren't you all spending your energy, you know, *doing that better thing instead*, rather than wasting that energy denigrating people for expressing pain and anger over the thing you are all, presumably, on the same side about? Who is that helping?

Whether it is true or not that you catch more flies with honey, if one method works well for some people and another method works better for others, why spend so much time and acrimony hashing which is the "better" or "proper" way to do it, thus de-legitimizing one or both methods, and just let both play out how they're going to play out? If you see people pulling away from the stick, _*reach out to them yourself with the carrot*_. *That *is how you help. 

Bullying a harassment survivor not only _*doesn't *_help, it only serves to *de-legitimize *the cause, and *embolden *those who treat harassment as no big deal.

It is horrible rhetoric. It is terrible tactics.


----------



## kenmarable

Gradine said:


> This is not an issue that requires two-way communication.




[-]I think lowkey13 agrees that two-way communication isn't required since he blocked myself and others yesterday, and I'm guessing you might find his posts vanishing from your copy of this thread as well. Guess he's interested in a different conversation.

Anyone else?[/-]

So how _specifically_ can we make conventions safer?

Maybe people need something to respond to, so how about this: Gen Con's harassment policy is inadequate because it (at least) fails to include:

 - A definition of harassment.

 - Information on how staff will respond to reports of harassment.

Strong statements are good (and their's is decently strong, so points for that) but not enough. If there is confusion about what Gen Con staff will consider harassment as well as having no transparency of what the process will entail ahead of time, people may be reluctant to report some instances of harassment. So Gen Con should be clearer about what constitutes harassment (but making sure it's not limited to _only_ those things since people like finding loopholes) as well as explaining how harassment reports will be handled including who (with names) will investigate the report and confidentiality of the reporter.

Agree? Disagree?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Jeanneliza said:


> After my carefully worded response one of you guys want to tell me what I said that was so out of line that Jasper, the gentleman I was responding to found it funny? His only reaction was to laugh.
> Is it because I was duped into believing a fake sob story?




I was assuming he was using it in the former meaning of "laugh at".  He was mocking your response.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> The BDSM community focuses on that, in no small part, because they have to in order to thrive as they push beyond what polite society would consider normal boundaries. If they didn't build in their own, clearer boundaries and aggressively defend them, I'm sure they'd fracture because they'd be swamped with bad actors who thought they could get away with literally anything.




WIth respect, the bad actor issue is secondary, and that's important for this discussion.

A nominally *good* actor, if left to intuit or read between the lines, will get it wrong occaisionally.  And in that community, if they get it wrong, they are committing assault, sexual assault, and/or rape.  The clear lines and requirement of clear consent are necessary to prevent the basic misunderstanding that turns what was intended to be a good experience for all into trauma and a crime.

What behavior is acceptable and desired between people is context dependant.  Consent is what informs you of what context you are in.  

That's a clarification, but the end point is the same.  We need clear boundaries of what behavior is acceptable in the convention context, and enforcement of those boundaries.  Not just to prevent agaisnt bad actors, but so that people who are acting in good faith have the information required to do so. 

All those who say, "OMG, the menfolk will be victimized!" fail to see the point that the clear statement of lines protects the good actors among them from misunderstanding.


----------



## Fergurg

kenmarable said:


> There's been some good discussion, but that signal has been buried in a lot of noise and distractions on however many pages this thread has been (I'm not sure the exact number because quite a few from my block list showed up especially early on as they usually do).
> 
> So, we're gamers and gamers like rules. So how about these ground rules to avoid distractions as much as possible. Prepare as I cast _Wall of Text! _



This should be fun.



kenmarable said:


> *1)* The current status quo is that there is a lot of sexual harassment at conventions in the gaming community. (Online harassment is another massive problem, but let's focus on conventions and maybe smaller gatherings like store events first. Online harassment may be more difficult to address and some of us might learn a few things working through conventions first.)




We'll cover this later, but a lot of this discussion needs to first detail what is and is not sexual harassment before determining how much there is, even with the vague amount of "a lot".



kenmarable said:


> *2)* It is not 100% men harassing women, but that makes up such a vast majority of it that this gendered aspect is fundamental to the problem and cannot be ignored. It must be considered in diagnosing and fixing the problem. However, the best fix(es) should help reduce all harassment: against women, men, young, old, LGBTQ, all religions, non-religious, etc.




Probably right.



kenmarable said:


> *3)* We want to reduce harassment as close to zero as humanly possible so that all attendees feel safe at conventions and events.




I would say as close to zero as realistically possible without creating worse problems.



kenmarable said:


> *4)* We want to have a conversation to figure out and educate us on how to achieve #3. If you disagree with #1-3, then you are not part of this conversation and should be ignored. You are having a different conversation.




Sorry, but unless you are a moderator, that is not your decision to make.



kenmarable said:


> *5)* Distractions from this conversation support the status quo of #1 and should be ignored.




It is my observation that much of what is labeled a Distraction is really Evidence That Disproves A Claim.



kenmarable said:


> *6)* Actual examples of harassment are more important than hypotheticals. Hypotheticals aren't necessarily a Distraction, but they can come close. At the very least, actual examples (and there are SO many out there) weigh far more importantly than hypotheticals.
> 
> *7)* However, specific examples should be used to further our goal of #3. Nitpicking and debating details of specific cases that do not inform the larger goal of #3 are Distractions. This conversation is not about deciding whether any particular instance was harassment or not. This conversation is about how to help attendees feel safe and be free from harassment.




This is where we disagree; if an example is given that the details show to not be harassment, then the details are not a Distraction, but Evidence That Disproves A Claim. That is the opposite of a Distraction.



kenmarable said:


> *8)* Courts have nothing to do with this and are a Distraction. Something does not have to be illegal to be against a convention policy (harassment or otherwise). Conventions can ban or otherwise punish attendees for a wide variety of behaviors that do not rise to the level of a crime. Harassment is no different.




I have not heard anyone say that a convention should not punish attendees for behaviors that are not crimes.



kenmarable said:


> *9)* Worries about false accusations beyond the same due diligence the convention would put into investigating reports of theft, physical assault, etc. are a Distraction. Of course, a basic level of due diligence from convention staff is necessary, but convention staff are also not expected to have a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie protagonist level of detective skills for other policy violations, and the same is true for harassment. A vendor reporting a theft is presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise, and an attendee reporting harassment is similarly presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise.




I won't speak for others, but my worry about false accusations comes from the fact that there is a loud chorus of people who literally want NO diligence made on reports of harassment. They want the accusation to be the evidence, with anything that would conflict with the accusation to be ignored and dismissed as a Distraction. 

You gave an example of a vendor reporting a theft. It is true that a vendor reporting a theft would be presumed genuine and honest, but that is not the same as presuming that the theft happened. It is presumed that the vendor believes he was stolen from, which means determining whether or not a theft happened. And you can be very sure that if a vendor accuses a specific person of theft, that it is not assumed that the person stole and you can be damn sure that anything showing that the theft didn't happen would not be dismissed as a Distraction.



kenmarable said:


> How does that sound?




It sounds like you want to move on to the point where people agree with you and go with what you want. In particular, literally seeking to dismiss disagreement as Distractions, and even labeling contrary evidence as Distractions.



kenmarable said:


> So that being said - *How can we do better? *




The way we can do better is by addressing something that NOBODY has said anything about, though many have hinted at it. *There is not an agreement of what exactly harassment is*.

We know and agree on some of the easy stuff - no groping, no stalking, no graphic comments to the person. But what if I am talking to my friend about a woman, does that woman get to have me thrown out because of a conversation that she was not a part of? How about taking pictures of the convention goers? I have heard stories of people thrown out of conventions for talking about Trump or abortion, claiming that their opinions were sexist, and people who overheard it complained about harassment.

And how much should offsite conduct play in convention rules enforcement? There are people in this very thread that have said that they feel unsafe going to conventions because of opinions of some of the people here; should those people be barred?

Am I saying that all of these things need to be considered in order to significantly reduce harassment? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING! If there is no agreement on what harassment is, how do you intend to stop it?


----------



## Gradine

kenmarable said:


> So how _specifically_ can we make conventions safer?
> 
> Maybe people need something to respond to, so how about this: Gen Con's harassment policy is inadequate because it (at least) fails to include:
> 
> - A definition of harassment.
> 
> - Information on how staff will respond to reports of harassment.
> 
> Strong statements are good (and their's is decently strong, so points for that) but not enough. If there is confusion about what Gen Con staff will consider harassment as well as having no transparency of what the process will entail ahead of time, people may be reluctant to report some instances of harassment. So Gen Con should be clearer about what constitutes harassment (but making sure it's not limited to _only_ those things since people like finding loopholes) as well as explaining how harassment reports will be handled including who (with names) will investigate the report and confidentiality of the reporter.
> 
> Agree? Disagree?




The latter bullet point is great and I think necessary. The former is trickier. I think the safest bet there is to follow the legal definition harassment, which is if the target feels harassed, the behavior that is causing it, whatever it is, is harassment.

Which sucks, because people are going to be clamoring for a strict, no-nonsense definition of which behaviors are or are not included, but the simple fact is that harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Behaviors that would bother one person would be fine with another. I mean, there are some are basic universal ones (don't touch without their consent, cosplay is not consent, respect people's boundaries) but if anyone wants a list of what behaviors are or are not okay for everyone that list isn't going to get much longer than that.

There will also be a *lot* of hemming and hawing over how some nerds have no social graces and etc. etc. but real talk for a moment; if somebody has so few social graces that they cannot help but unintentionally make others feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome, maybe they don't belong at a large crowded social gathering?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Fergurg said:


> I would say as close to zero as realistically possible without creating worse problems.




Similar to your contention that there is disagreement on what constitutes harassment, there is disagreement on what would be "worse problems".

Some participants in this thread would include the following as problems that are worse than sexual harassment itself:
 - Men not feeling free to hit on women
 - The chance that doing so might result in being "outed" for that behavior in the media
 - Women having credibility that is independent of formal investigations

In other words, any threat to the status quo would be a worse problem.  They're ok with reducing harassment, just as long as doing so doesn't inconvenience them.


----------



## kenmarable

Fergurg said:


> The way we can do better is by addressing something that NOBODY has said anything about, though many have hinted at it. *There is not an agreement of what exactly harassment is*.
> 
> We know and agree on some of the easy stuff - no groping, no stalking, no graphic comments to the person. But what if I am talking to my friend about a woman, does that woman get to have me thrown out because of a conversation that she was not a part of? How about taking pictures of the convention goers? I have heard stories of people thrown out of conventions for talking about Trump or abortion, claiming that their opinions were sexist, and people who overheard it complained about harassment.
> 
> And how much should offsite conduct play in convention rules enforcement? There are people in this very thread that have said that they feel unsafe going to conventions because of opinions of some of the people here; should those people be barred?
> 
> Am I saying that all of these things need to be considered in order to significantly reduce harassment? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING! If there is no agreement on what harassment is, how do you intend to stop it?




I agree that this is a very important and constructive question.

_(Also, I was stating what conversation I am interested in having, and I see others are interested in having, and is productive moving forward. If people want to talk about other stuff or debate #1-3, I'm not stopping them. I'm not trying to moderate the thread. I'm just saying that I see that as a waste of time and not part of the conversation I am interested in or see as productive. If others disagree, then fine. Have your own conversation even in this thread.)_


So, first is a definition of what constitutes harassment. Secondly is the issue of incidents/reports outside of the convention.

Tackling the first... well... first... how should a convention define and clarify what would be considered harassment? That's a problem I see A LOT of conventions having where they are very strongly against harassment but never clarify what it is.

How about this as a start:

*"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments [related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, [your specific concern here]], sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately."*

For a real world convention policy (as opposed to rules-lawyering getting into bizarre hypotheticals, because we are gamers after all) , how would you feel about this as a definition of harassment at a convention you want to attend? Obviously after filling in the brackets with details, is this a clear enough definition for you that you feel you could:

1) Avoid the problem of a good actor misunderstanding (as Umbran mentions above with a different context of BDSM)? 

2) Feel confident that if you were in a potentially harassing situation, you could be clear that it would or would not be considered harassment by the convention?

3) If you were a witness to a potentially harassing situation, you could be clear that it would or would not be considered harassment by the convention?

Also, are there any (again, realistic) situations you might imagine being in (or have been in) or witnessed that you would consider as harassment that is NOT covered by this?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine

lowkey13 said:


> So I will answer one more time- either you understand, or you don't. Before you reply again, I really recommend going back to the beginning of this thread and seeing all of my responses last week.
> 
> Then get back to me about selective tone policing.




I want you to know I did take the time to do this, and I do see you doing some of the exact work I called on you to do. Which is fantastic. I do owe you an apology for being overly aggressive (in a post that was, ostensibly, about not cannibalizing our own, no less).

One thing I will say is that some of those posts were also fairly sarcastic and troll-y, so I'm not the only one immune from self-serving hypocrisy.  

The other thing is that I will not agree with is that there is ever an appropriate place for tone policing. It's a bad look for the people who are targeted by it, it's a bad look for the people who are doing it, and the only people who gain from it are the people who can lean on it as an excuse to not take the problem seriously in the first place.


----------



## kenmarable

Gradine said:


> The latter bullet point is great and I think necessary. The former is trickier. I think the safest bet there is to follow the legal definition harassment, which is if the target feels harassed, the behavior that is causing it, whatever it is, is harassment.
> 
> Which sucks, because people are going to be clamoring for a strict, no-nonsense definition of which behaviors are or are not included, but the simple fact is that harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Behaviors that would bother one person would be fine with another. I mean, there are some are basic universal ones (don't touch without their consent, cosplay is not consent, respect people's boundaries) but if anyone wants a list of what behaviors are or are not okay for everyone that list isn't going to get much longer than that.
> 
> There will also be a *lot* of hemming and hawing over how some nerds have no social graces and etc. etc. but real talk for a moment; if somebody has so few social graces that they cannot help but unintentionally make others feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome, maybe they don't belong at a large crowded social gathering?




I do agree that it largely is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not quite ready to throw that baby out with the bathwater yet. _(Although, admittedly, that's a stupid use of that analogy because are you *ever* ready to throw a baby out with the bathwater??  Anyway!)_

I think a policy that clearly lists certain behaviors _as examples_ and is clear that it's not an exhaustive list would be far more useful and productive than leaving it in the opinion of the victim. For one thing, there's the usual points raised about putting too much power in the victim's hands then to accuse about whatever they want blah blah, but a more reasonable worry I see if it also puts too much _responsibility_ on the victim. There have been many conventions that took the aspect of "what does the victim want" too far, and put an undue burden on the victim rather than taking on the responsibility themselves. 

So, in my opinion, a convention making a clear list (but also noting it's not exhaustive and there is an aspect of subjective interpretation), protects the victims as well by taking on the responsibility of being the judge rather than adding it onto the victim as an extra burden.

Maybe we have to wind up with what you state as being the best option, but, personally, I'd like to take some time and explore other options before settling on that.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fergurg

Elfcrusher said:


> Similar to your contention that there is disagreement on what constitutes harassment, there is disagreement on what would be "worse problems".
> 
> Some participants in this thread would include the following as problems that are worse than sexual harassment itself:
> - Men not feeling free to hit on women
> - The chance that doing so might result in being "outed" for that behavior in the media
> - Women having credibility that is independent of formal investigations
> 
> In other words, any threat to the status quo would be a worse problem.  They're ok with reducing harassment, just as long as doing so doesn't inconvenience them.




Is that what people have said, or is that just you belief on what "some participants" must really mean, but are speaking in code?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine

lowkey13 said:


> That's not the definition, in any statute that I am aware of, of harassment.
> 
> In addition, there are numerous definitions of harassment depending on the circumstances.
> 
> For example, you could have a general and expansive definition (see various state statute, e.g., Fla. Stat. sec. 748.048- 'Harass' means to engage in a course of conduct directed a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.)
> 
> Or it could be more specialized- for example, under Title VII, harassment is a specific form of discrimination; for example, see 29 C.F.R. sec. 1604.11 (quid pro quo sexual harassment), or it could be hostile work environment (which must be pervasive). And so on.
> 
> I have never see it defined as "if the target feels harassed," which would render it subjective to the point of meaninglessness, and unenforceable in a _court of law._
> 
> (This doesn't mean you can't use it outside of a court of law, but you might want some more objective definitions, even if it's something similar to the state statutes I provided).




I can't speak to Title VII at all as I have no experience with it, but I can speak towards Title IX standards, which defines harassment simply as behaviors which are "unwanted". That sounds pretty subjective to me, but I think it kind of has to be. Note that, in all of my experience with Title IX, there has never been a requirement for the complainant to verbally ask for the unwanted behavior to stop before they can pursue a complaint; the lack of affirmative consent is all that is needed for continued unwanted behavior to constitute harassment.

This was the same policy we followed in the five years I spent in the casino industry, though that is admittedly an industry that can afford to be a little more choosy about their clientele and employees.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Particle_Man

Afrodyte said:


> I'd feel safer at a clothes-optional BDSM event full of people I've never met or interacted with than the vast majority of the men commenting on this thread. And they actually beat people.




That alludes to a good point.  Cons/Messageboards/FLGSs might profit greatly by looking at what codes of conduct BDSM events have.  Something tells me that they could be ahead of the curve when it comes to dealing with predatory/unwelcome behaviour that makes people feel, and/or be, unsafe.


----------



## kenmarable

Fergurg said:


> We know and agree on some of the easy stuff - no groping, no stalking, no graphic comments to the person. But what if I am talking to my friend about a woman, does that woman get to have me thrown out because of a conversation that she was not a part of? How about taking pictures of the convention goers? I have heard stories of people thrown out of conventions for talking about Trump or abortion, claiming that their opinions were sexist, and people who overheard it complained about harassment.




Also, to address your particular instances, I am wondering what others think of as well (especially in light of the sample harassment definition I posted above)

A) Talking about a 3rd party who is not present - does this count as harassment? 

My personal take is - if it is a private conversation between the two of you, I, personally, would not consider that harassment under that policy. However, I think how public the conversation is an important factor. Two people talking in a reasonably private setting in a normal voice - no, I'd say they are fine. Talking loudly in a crowded, public place where its clear they are intending to be overheard, I'd think that's starting to cross a line since even though one is just talking to their friend *wink wink*, they clear aren't. In front of a microphone at a panel, oh you bet that's harassment, even if that person isn't there.

A grey area, I'm not sure how to handle but am interested in hearing other opinions is deliberate rumor spreading. Two people just talking privately about a women doesn't really seem to cross that line into harassment. However, having the same conversation with many friends (especially with the understanding that they will likely have similar conversations with others) in order to spread a dirty rumor about someone, that seems to be something very different, and could be considered harassment. 

Now, I don't think the sample policy above makes that distinction, and I'm not sure how well one could. But it would be interesting to see some attempts. But bottom line, personally, just two guys talking to themselves doesn't seem to be harassment. But two guys talking to themselves *wink wink* (totally wanting others to hear) WOULD be harassment.

B) Trump and abortion (or other controversial topics). In my opinion, the topics alone certainly should not be considered harassment. However, I can easily see in certain contexts, they could cross that line. If you have specific details on those incidents you mention, I'd like to hear them, but in lieu of that a Dread Hypothetical. Talking about Trump _(or any political figure)_ casually - no problem. Going to a panel on diversity or gamers of color and telling them all that Trump is going to kick them all out when the wall goes up - yeah, I'd say that's definitely harassment. I would also say verbally attacking someone just for wearing a MAGA hat is harassment as well. In those brackets, I think "political affiliation" should be included. (Mods, sorry if that cross the no politics lines, I was just trying to address that case without condoning whether it is good or bad. Feel free to delete that bit if necessary.) Or I can't see a convention saying you can NEVER talk about abortion, but I can think of many situations where that topic would be highly inappropriate regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

So, bottom line - of course, I don't think any convention should have a list of forbidden topics, but in certain contexts, any controversial topic could easily become harassment. The context of the situation is vitally important to whether it is an appropriate topic _at that time_ or not. A convention can discipline someone for harassment because that topic was inappropriate in that context even if it would be perfectly acceptable (or even protected!) in other contexts.


----------



## Gradine

kenmarable said:


> I do agree that it largely is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not quite ready to throw that baby out with the bathwater yet. _(Although, admittedly, that's a stupid use of that analogy because are you *ever* ready to throw a baby out with the bathwater??  Anyway!)_
> 
> I think a policy that clearly lists certain behaviors _as examples_ and is clear that it's not an exhaustive list would be far more useful and productive than leaving it in the opinion of the victim. For one thing, there's the usual points raised about putting too much power in the victim's hands then to accuse about whatever they want blah blah, but a more reasonable worry I see if it also puts too much _responsibility_ on the victim. There have been many conventions that took the aspect of "what does the victim want" too far, and put an undue burden on the victim rather than taking on the responsibility themselves.
> 
> So, in my opinion, a convention making a clear list (but also noting it's not exhaustive and there is an aspect of subjective interpretation), protects the victims as well by taking on the responsibility of being the judge rather than adding it onto the victim as an extra burden.
> 
> Maybe we have to wind up with what you state as being the best option, but, personally, I'd like to take some time and explore other options before settling on that.




I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some nuance to this. I'm also not, and really nobody [MENTION=91165]Fergurg[/MENTION] and others who the same hysterical straw-man argument, argue that anyone should be kicked out of a con based on one person's say so. I'll actually admit that this makes me somewhat wary of "zero tolerance" policies, because there's I think there's always room for nuance and possible one-off exceptions. I once had a neurodivergent employee who would constantly crowd other people's personal space to talk to them; it was unwelcome behavior and certain met a reasonable definition of "harassment", but he also legitimately _could not_ understand other people's nonverbal cues due to their neurodivergence. When I talked to him about the problem, the behavior ceased. Should I have instead made an example out of this employee, in order to uphold a zero tolerance against harassment workplace? And what do we do at cons? Do we offer warnings and second chances to those who seem to be legitimately unaware of the harm they caused but are apologetic, and promise to correct their behavior?

I think a policy needs to be strict, flexible, and humane, which is an extremely difficult balancing act to accomplish. Legitimate bad actors need to identified and expelled as quickly as possible. But there also needs to be room for learning opportunities for those willing to learn. All people, regardless of sex, gender, race, sexuality, ability, etc. should be able to feel safe and welcome and comfortable at cons without fear of harassment, whatever personally triggers them, and they shouldn't have the onus placed on them to verbally ask that the behavior be stopped before being allowed to make a complaint or be taken seriously. There should be a standard of evidence, and I feel like Title IX's preponderance of evidence (that the harassment needs only be more likely than not to have happened) seems like the best standard to apply, but who handles the investigation? Should Cons hire or find volunteer Title IX Coordinators/Investigators for their events for just such a case? How much training should all con staffers and/or volunteers receive on how to handle harassment complaints, and is there a clear chain of command to follow for those who want to take a complaint higher up if the staff/volunteer doesn't take the complaint seriously?

I don't have answers to all of those questions, but they probably need to be answered.


----------



## kenmarable

Particle_Man said:


> That alludes to a good point.  Cons/Messageboards/FLGSs might profit greatly by looking at what codes of conduct BDSM events have.  Something tells me that they could be ahead of the curve when it comes to dealing with predatory/unwelcome behaviour that makes people feel, and/or be, unsafe.




Just check with your boss and/or Significant Other before doing those searches! 

In all seriousness, I agree. Since that community *has* to deal with these issues, I'm sure they have spent a lot more time than others on it. However, since I am posting this from work, I will NOT volunteer to research that and report back what useful information they have.


----------



## Gradine

lowkey13 said:


> I am not a Title IX expert, but quickly looking over the relevant materials and the guidance (citing caselaw), it is not dissimilar from Title VII.
> 
> Regardless, I would concentrate on something similar to-
> 
> "engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person or persons which causes substantial emotional distress to that person or persons and serves no legitimate purpose."
> 
> That's for generic harassment; maybe some additional language for unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or other verbal, nonverbal, or other physical conduct of a sexual nature (since that seems to be the most problematic area of harassment).




I think my biggest concern with a con having a laundry list of unacceptable behaviors is that it can give the impression that other non-listed behaviors either aren't considered harassment at this particular con or at best aren't taken as seriously as harassment as the behaviors that are listed. You'd still need a subjective "and any other behaviors that are unwanted or cause an individual distress" statement to cover yourself anyway, and putting the laundry list in front only dilutes the importance of that message.

I'd suggest that a more effective policy doubles down on the significance of harassment being subjective, personal, and in the eye of the beholder. In a statement that clearly puts the onus on the instigator to check that their behaviors are wanted before continuing to pursue them.


----------



## Gradine

kenmarable said:


> Just check with your boss and/or Significant Other before doing those searches!
> 
> In all seriousness, I agree. Since that community *has* to deal with these issues, I'm sure they have spent a lot more time than others on it. However, since I am posting this from work, I will NOT volunteer to research that and report back what useful information they have.




Would it help if researching the anti-harassment policies of the BDSM community would not at all be out of place for my Significant Other's actual job?


----------



## kenmarable

Gradine said:


> I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some nuance to this. I'm also not, and really nobody [MENTION=91165]Fergurg[/MENTION] and others who the same hysterical straw-man argument, argue that anyone should be kicked out of a con based on one person's say so. I'll actually admit that this makes me somewhat wary of "zero tolerance" policies, because there's I think there's always room for nuance and possible one-off exceptions. I once had a neurodivergent employee who would constantly crowd other people's personal space to talk to them; it was unwelcome behavior and certain met a reasonable definition of "harassment", but he also legitimately _could not_ understand other people's nonverbal cues due to their neurodivergence. When I talked to him about the problem, the behavior ceased. Should I have instead made an example out of this employee, in order to uphold a zero tolerance against harassment workplace? And what do we do at cons? Do we offer warnings and second chances to those who seem to be legitimately unaware of the harm they caused but are apologetic, and promise to correct their behavior?




Absolutely agree. Some of the best arguments I have read against "zero tolerance" policies have actually come from those who are for very strong policies. It's an example of a convention (or workplace or whatever) that might mean well, but is actually avoiding responsibility rather than taking it on. 

Definitely the seriousness of the offense is an issue regarding warnings & second chances. Some things obviously are worthy of immediate permabans, and others are situations where everyone involved (including the victim) just want the person spoken to by an official. There are even cases where someone might want to report not so much because they want something done about it, but just so that there's a record in case it is a pattern of bad behavior rather than a single misunderstanding. The difficulty is in how handle all of the range of issues between those obvious extremes. My best answer to that is training, training, training (which you mention below).




Gradine said:


> I think a policy needs to be strict, flexible, and humane, which is an extremely difficult balancing act to accomplish. Legitimate bad actors need to identified and expelled as quickly as possible. But there also needs to be room for learning opportunities for those willing to learn. All people, regardless of sex, gender, race, sexuality, ability, etc. should be able to feel safe and welcome and comfortable at cons without fear of harassment, whatever personally triggers them, and they shouldn't have the onus placed on them to verbally ask that the behavior be stopped before being allowed to make a complaint or be taken seriously. There should be a standard of evidence, and I feel like Title IX's preponderance of evidence (that the harassment needs only be more likely than not to have happened) seems like the best standard to apply, but who handles the investigation? Should Cons hire or find volunteer Title IX Coordinators/Investigators for their events for just such a case? How much training should all con staffers and/or volunteers receive on how to handle harassment complaints, and is there a clear chain of command to follow for those who want to take a complaint higher up if the staff/volunteer doesn't take the complaint seriously?




Agree, agree, agree.  

Plus, I think staff training is absolutely essential. For any convention where the attendance is measured in the hundreds, harassment response training is not optional. It must be done. (For conventions so large the attendance is measured in the thousands, I'd say not training the staff should actually make them accountable for anything that happens there since it is serious negligence in this era.)

Smaller FLGS events are trickier since it can be a financial burden on stores that are barely staying afloat. However, there is plenty of free information on the Internet, and with some digging, I'm sure there's some very informative videos and other tutorial information that serves as free harassment response training.

If you are going to host a fan gathering, you need to know how to address these issues.



Gradine said:


> I don't have answers to all of those questions, but they probably need to be answered.




My only edit is I would drop the word "probably."


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Particle_Man

There is also a "who watches the watchers" possibility.  Like, there should be a means of reporting harassers to other people if the harassers are themselves normally the people to whom you report harassers.  And this has to be formalized enough that we don't get "But John couldn't have done that; he's a friend of ours!" situations where the harassment claim gets dismissed out of hand.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

Let us stop talking in generalities, and look at an actual example of a convention anti-harassment policy.  If you put your internet searching skills to use, you can find several examples.  There's actually some basic boilerplate that's been developed for the purpose, used mostly verbatim across many smaller cons.  For example:

"Foo-Con is dedicated to providing a harassment-free convention experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, or religion, or any other factor. We do not tolerate harassment of convention attendees in any form. Convention attendees violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the convention without a refund at the discretion of the convention organizers.

Harassment includes, but is not limited to, offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, or religion. It also includes display of sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of games or other events, inappropriate physical contact, unwelcome sexual attention, bathroom policing, and unwelcome simulated combat using realistic or non-realistic weapon props. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the convention organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the convention with no refund. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of the convention staff immediately

Convention Staff will be happy to help participants contact Hotel security or local law enforcement if desired, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the convention."

Who thinks this is too vague, such that attendees capable of reading the policy will somehow not be aware of what is and isn't acceptable?  

Note that some cons are starting to have attendees sign a document to certify that they've seen the policy, and accept it, so there is no excuse for not having read it.  

One of my local cons uses a variation of this policy.  Want me to go into what they did when I made a report of a harassment incident?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I do not think a super detailed code is useful. Too much verbiage and no-one will read it. Language on the lines of behaviour including but not limited to {example} is fine. We are trying to raise the bar on expected standards of behaviour, so start with the obvious stuff and the language can be tightened up subsequently if found problematic. 

A clear message that a high standard of behaviour is required.

Floor staff need a clear procedure of how to handle complaints and how to escalate more serious incidents. 

A person with a complaint needs to know they can complain, can escalate the complaint if they feel that is necessary.


Edit: Coming back to the thread and re-reading this. This post is in no way a commentary on Umbran's post above mine. I made this post with out seeing Umbran's  post. 
It is, however, a good post.


----------



## kenmarable

Umbran said:


> Let us stop talking in generalities, and look at an actual example of a convention anti-harassment policy.  If you put your internet searching skills to use, you can find several examples.  There's actually some basic boilerplate that's been developed for the purpose, used mostly verbatim across many smaller cons.  For example:
> 
> "Foo-Con is dedicated to providing a harassment-free convention experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, or religion, or any other factor. We do not tolerate harassment of convention attendees in any form. Convention attendees violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the convention without a refund at the discretion of the convention organizers.
> 
> Harassment includes, but is not limited to, offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, or religion. It also includes display of sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of games or other events, inappropriate physical contact, unwelcome sexual attention, bathroom policing, and unwelcome simulated combat using realistic or non-realistic weapon props. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.
> 
> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the convention organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the convention with no refund. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of the convention staff immediately
> 
> Convention Staff will be happy to help participants contact Hotel security or local law enforcement if desired, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the convention."
> 
> Who thinks this is too vague, such that attendees capable fo reading the policy will somehow not be aware of what is and isn't acceptable?
> 
> Note that some cons are starting to have attendees sign a document to certify that they've seen the policy, and accept it, so there is no excuse for not having read it.
> 
> One of my local cons uses a variation of this policy.  Want me to go into what they did when I made a report of a harassment incident?




This is great!

My main request for expansion would be in having more of it addressing the potential victims: 

- clarifying how confidential reports are (or are not), 

- being absolutely clear on who among the convention organizers decides what action is appropriate (ideally it should be a group and NOT an individual), 

- whether and how someone filing a report are notified of the con's response, as well as 

- whether there are appeal processes or not (for both accusers and accused who feel their concerns were not adequately addressed). 

- Lastly, there is the massive can of worms of pre-emptive banning for behavior outside of the con is possible and under what circumstances. That's something cons should have a clear policy on _before_ it comes up, because it will eventually come up especially as the backlog of unreported issues are finally reported because they are somewhat more likely to be take seriously now.

Edit to add: Also, when it comes to actual presentation of this policy, I definitely think it should be tailored to the medium. So on the website and program book, there can be a full version of it. During registration there can be a "this is harassment, ok?" pledge version. On posters in hallways, exhibit halls, etc. those should be far more succinct and focused only on "These things are harassment, so don't do them and watch for people doing them to others" and "If you are harassed or are witness to harassment, talk to these people." That's it. Leave the subtly and details to things like the program book and website where you can even include a clear, step-by-step "You have been harassed, now what should you do?" guidance.


----------



## Riley37

RedJenOSU said:


> So we're still talking about eliminating harassment in the context of the RPG hobby space right?




Yeah, how do we do that *only* in the RPG hobby space, without affecting or observing it, in the rest of the world? What is the particular method which is unique to RPGers?

Maybe we should study harassment and counter-harassment methods in Greyhawk, then in Forgotten Realms, solve them there, then extend that solution to cons, and THEN to USA society and all of humanity.


----------



## kenmarable

Riley37 said:


> Yeah, how do we do that *only* in the RPG hobby space, without affecting or observing it, in the rest of the world? What is the particular method which is unique to RPGers?
> 
> Maybe we should study harassment and counter-harassment methods in Greyhawk, then in Forgotten Realms, solve them there, then extend that solution to cons, and THEN to USA society and all of humanity.




To echo someone else earlier, what is your goal with this? Is it a snarky attack or just an attempt at some humor? Don’t know about others, but I’m confused.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Riley37 said:


> Yeah, how do we do that *only* in the RPG hobby space, without affecting or observing it, in the rest of the world? What is the particular method which is unique to RPGers?
> 
> Maybe we should study harassment and counter-harassment methods in Greyhawk, then in Forgotten Realms, solve them there, then extend that solution to cons, and THEN to USA society and all of humanity.




We don't. Ultimately the standard of behaviour in public spaces in general has to improve if the issue of harassment and the general feeling of lack of safety is to be addressed. However, that is no reason no to demand better behaviour in the private spaces we do control.

If you want to move a mountain, you start by carrying away a single stone and all that.


----------



## Afrodyte

Pssst. Guys? 

That's a woman responding to a specific set of circumstances you're saying all that to.


----------



## Umbran

Completely eliminating harassment from gaming is, I fear, not an achievable goal.  There is no form of wrongdoing in the world that humans have ever been able to completely eliminate, and the community is too large to police with 100% efficacy.  Minimize.  Reduce significantly.  Make our community safer than the world at large.  These might be things we can attain.

But then, quibbling over the word "eliminate" is a kind of deflection and distraction.  Aim high, and what we can achieve will at least be an improvement.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Umbran said:


> Completely eliminating harassment from gaming is, I fear, not an achievable goal.  There is no form of wrongdoing in the world that humans have ever been able to completely eliminate, and the community is too large to police with 100% efficacy.  Minimize.  Reduce significantly.  Make our community safer than the world at large.  These might be things we can attain.
> 
> But then, quibbling over the word "eliminate" is a kind of deflection and distraction.  Aim high, and what we can achieve will at least be an improvement.




The impossibility of perfection is an objection often raised by those who are hoping nothing will be done at all.


----------



## Anselyn

Umbran said:


> Who thinks this is too vague, such that attendees capable of reading the policy will somehow not be aware of what is and isn't acceptable?




I didn't know what "bathroom policing" was and so googled it. I agree that's harassment but it was stated as jargon (to me) rather than being entirely transparent in meaning from the words as the rest is. 

I am also unaware of the difference between following and stalking - and haven't googled that, yet.

The statment clearly inidcates a sphere of definitions that would raise awareness with any reader - but those most needing to engage with such a policy are perhaps most likely to not know the subtleties of some definitions there.

I am also mindful that for any international gathering - such as ENWorldCon - any policy has to be clear for anyone reading it in their second language or, at least, for users of non-American English.


----------



## Umbran

Elfcrusher said:


> The impossibility of perfection is an objection often raised by those who are hoping nothing will be done at all.




Yep.  As my dad used to say, "Making perfect the enemy of good is dumb."


----------



## Guest 6801328

Umbran said:


> Yep.  As my dad used to say, "Making perfect the enemy of good is dumb."




Or it's good strategy, if you're evil.


----------



## Sunseeker

ardoughter said:


> We don't. Ultimately the standard of behaviour in public spaces in general has to improve if the issue of harassment and the general feeling of lack of safety is to be addressed. However, that is no reason no to demand better behaviour in the private spaces we do control.
> 
> If you want to move a mountain, you start by carrying away a single stone and all that.




And improvement in small places will carry out into the larger sphere.  People who have to "step up" to attend a Con may find it less difficult than they imagined (it really is) and may find themselves stepping up elsewhere.  Because really: noone wants to deal with harassment.  Women don't want to be harassed, men don't want to be harassed, people don't want to hang out with harassers; so if we keep calling on people to step up we will see a ripple effect as people start preferring communities and events with less harassment, and then carry that drive for reduced harassment back to their home, their schools, and their other social places.

I mean, we're demanding social change here, at least within a microcosm of society, a sub-society if you will, and that kind of demand has _always_ rippled out into the larger scene.  Because it's fair to say: the application of social pressure to get people to turn away from bad behaviour has IMO, fallen to a pretty low point in society at large.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Umbran said:


> Yep.  As my dad used to say, "Making perfect the enemy of good is dumb."




And to the others that mentioned no system would be perfect. I can't speak for others under all of those other labels that have changed over time, but I don't think most women are asking or expect perfection. A good many of us end up in relationships with men ya know.


----------



## Calithorne

Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women.  I think the absence of fathers from many young men's lives is the biggest problem.  A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.


----------



## Umbran

kenmarable said:


> This is great!
> 
> My main request for expansion would be in having more of it addressing the potential victims:
> 
> - clarifying how confidential reports are (or are not),
> 
> - being absolutely clear on who among the convention organizers decides what action is appropriate (ideally it should be a group and NOT an individual),
> 
> - whether and how someone filing a report are notified of the con's response, as well as
> 
> - whether there are appeal processes or not (for both accusers and accused who feel their concerns were not adequately addressed).
> 
> - Lastly, there is the massive can of worms of pre-emptive banning for behavior outside of the con is possible and under what circumstances. That's something cons should have a clear policy on _before_ it comes up, because it will eventually come up especially as the backlog of unreported issues are finally reported because they are somewhat more likely to be take seriously now.




A couple of thoughts - 

They do have to keep it short, or there might be credible defense of, "You actually expected people to read all this?"  The primary goal of the document is to delineate acceptable behavior, which folks discussing here have noted is a bit of a sticking point.

I think there's good reasons to not list the details of internal processes in an outward facing document.  The con should *have* policies, yes.  The last couple I knew the internal workings of had several different policies and action-trees for various cases, and they'd be rather long if made attendee-facing.  And they have to have some leeway to deal with things that aren't cut-and-dried.  Making public the internal processes (say, of decision making) give offenders an invitation to argue ("You didn't follow your own policy!").  In the end, for this document, the fact that the convention reserves the right to boot you if it deems necessary, *however* it makes that decision, is the primary bit.  

The last time I had to register a complaint (two years ago) the con made perfectly clear what the privacy/cofidentiality policies were and what results-reporting would be before I told them anything, so I could make informed choices of the information to include.

Appeals and pre-con banning are not really issues that are dealt with *at* the con, and so are a little out of the purview of this particular document.


----------



## Riley37

Umbran said:


> We need clear boundaries of what behavior is acceptable in the convention context, and enforcement of those boundaries.  Not just to prevent agaisnt bad actors, but so that people who are acting in good faith have the information required to do so.




You have posted this in your community member role, rather than your Moderator role, if I understand correctly. Is this therefore fair game for dissent, disagrement, and debate? Is the thread open to counter-arguments, asserting that we don't need boundaries, and that we don't need enforcement?


----------



## Calithorne

There is no solution to this problem because the entire world is filled with bad people who act badly and our society reinforces boorish behavior by portraying it favorably on TV shows that children watch.

For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs.

The game world is not going to be able to fix this societal problem by setting up rules and committees.  The problem is too big to solve.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> improvement in small places will carry out into the larger sphere.



I agree. There is a saying that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Contrariwise, any advancement of justice, sets a useful precedent and good example for the rest of human society. If this is your larger point, then I'm on board.

However...



shidaku said:


> people don't want to hang out with harassers...




So you say. I have seen otherwise. If your life has, so far, only crossed paths with people who don't want to hang out with harassers, then you're doing something right, and I encourage you to keep doing it. But I consider this assertion recklessly, irresponsibly and dangerously inaccurate. I don't know how to summarize how many people's stories you are contradicting; people who were harassed (or worse), and after the harassment (or worse) came to light, the harasser remained popular and had a strong circle of support. I'm angry that you are ignoring or dismissing all those stories.

As one example, consider how many con groupies hang out with Benjamin "Sargon" Carl, whom Anita Sarkeesian names as one of her harassers. If you dismiss her accusations, fine; set aside this one example; I can list other examples, as needed. Here's another one: the former owner of the Miss Teen USA tournament, 2005 onwards, who delighted in surprise inspections of undressed teenage contestants. (Details, in his own words, in an earlier post.) (Hint: one of the people currently trying to hang out with him, a person of no small popularity himself, claims they both have "dragon energy"). Does that suffice, as an example or two to make my point? Would further examples be useful, or would debate over each example be useful?

One does not get the Titanic to New York's harbors, under the assumption that there are no icebergs in the Atlantic. One does not simply walk into Mordor, carrying the Ring, with the cheerful plan of "no one will oppose us along the way". One does not reduce con harassment without addressing push-back and counter-measures.

I hope this casual, carefree, confident assertion, about harassers having no buddies to support them, is secondary to your previous point, and that we can agree on the former while disagreeing with the latter.


----------



## Riley37

kenmarable said:


> Prepare as I cast _Wall of Text!_




Alas, the action economy is not in your favor. Casting Wall of Text takes you an action; in some game systems, a Complex Action.

Casting Derail, however, is a Reaction; trivially easy, by comparison.

In practice, Wall of Text is mainly useful on willing targets, and is very difficult to impose on foes.


----------



## kenmarable

Umbran said:


> A couple of thoughts -
> 
> They do have to keep it short, or there might be credible defense of, "You actually expected people to read all this?"  The primary goal of the document is to delineate acceptable behavior, which folks discussing here have noted is a bit of a sticking point.
> 
> I think there's good reasons to not list the details of internal processes in an outward facing document.  The con should *have* policies, yes.  The last couple I knew the internal workings of had several different policies and action-trees for various cases, and they'd be rather long if made attendee-facing.  And they have to have some leeway to deal with things that aren't cut-and-dried.  Making public the internal processes (say, of decision making) give offenders an invitation to argue ("You didn't follow your own policy!").  In the end, for this document, the fact that the convention reserves the right to boot you if it deems necessary, *however* it makes that decision, is the primary bit.
> 
> The last time I had to register a complaint (two years ago) the con made perfectly clear what the privacy/cofidentiality policies were and what results-reporting would be before I told them anything, so I could make informed choices of the information to include.
> 
> Appeals and pre-con banning are not really issues that are dealt with *at* the con, and so are a little out of the purview of this particular document.




Having the level of detail with decision-trees, etc. is great! When I say I'd like harassment policies to talk about the process, I'm certainly not talking about that level of detail both since people's eyes will glaze over and it will lead to bad actors trying to game the system.

Mainly, I think it is necessary or at the very least useful to include:

 - Who is making the decisions? Is it a committee? And if so, is it the top con-runners committee or a subset, etc? Is it the President if it is a company sponsored con? Just as an example, not to single them out, but Paizo talked about their policy for PaizoCon being "tell Lisa and she'll handle it", which on the surface sounds strong and decisive but is actually a really insufficient policy. Also with an industry as small as ours, knowing who is doing the investigation and determination can be important if some of the people running the con are close friends and/or business partners with someone who is accused.

 - Maybe some sort of time frame? Nothing too strict, since there needs to be flexibility, but at least whether someone making a report should expect to hear back within X amount of time, etc. even if it is a "we're still looking into it." It could be as short as "We will attempt to update you on progress within 24 hours." since some people might not even know if they will ever hear anything back (and some conventions do never follow up with people who file reports even if they are handling the situation - setting some sort of follow up expectation helps remind the convention to keep the reporter in the loop). 

Basically, more like setting expectations than really getting into the details of the decision tree process.

Also, it's good that they were clear with you about levels of confidentiality and expectations when you went to report. However, I also think that information would be more useful earlier, especially for more vulnerable groups who are uncomfortable with reporting at all. Ideally, having on the website not just "Our Harassment Policy" but additionally a "How to report harassment" page could include that information. It should also include a list of what sort of information the staff will need so that the person reporting can be better prepared. There's no reason a convention's harassment information needs to be just a single set of a few policy paragraphs. If someone needs more information dealing with something as sensitive as this, it would be nice to be able to get that information before having to talk to a live person. 

So, technically, I suppose this information doesn't need to be part of the "Harassment Policy" per se, but it would be extremely useful to have it publicly available when necessary and not just rely on finding all of this out when you go to make a report.


----------



## Riley37

kenmarable said:


> To echo someone else earlier, what is your goal with this? Is it a snarky attack or just an attempt at some humor? Don’t know about others, but I’m confused.




Thank you for asking!

IMO, asking is often better than jumping to conclusions, at least when the poster has elsewhere made substantial arguments in good faith. DannyAlcatraz asked what we could do, to reduce harassment, and what price we would pay. I laid out a comprehensive working model, Alphacon vs. Betacon,  for how cons can discourage harassment, and what I would pay to attend such a con, rather than the Status Quo. If that didn't tell you what team I'm on, then I don't know what will.

I'm making the point, snarkily, that this conversation isn't an isolated thing, off in the corner of our culture; I'm pointing out that harassment also is in the headlines. The 2016 USA election was, among other things, a national referendum on whether "grab her by the pussy" is a deal-breaker, for entrusting an individual with a position of power and influence. (TLDR: it's not.)

What I think might work - MIGHT - is looking to the larger Culture Wars, and seeing where communities have successfully reduced harassment. Then apply those methods to gaming cons. Once harassment stops being a norm of con behavior and FLGS behavior, then that cultural shift may influence the stories we tell around gaming tables, and therefore how often the fictional women in Greyhawk and Faerune experience harassment. (Gor and FATAL are still no-go zones.) Somewhere along the way, the game books will also shift - for example, there will be fewer monster illustrations who are "clearly asking for it" (such as the pureblood yuan-ti in the 5E MM, who for a *snake person* is still somehow showing off a lot of cleavage with her off-the-shoulder dress).

But that's only if the anti-harassment faction wins the Culture War *within* the TRPG community. It's not clear to me that the anti-harassment faction even has the upper hand. I mentioned That Guy, at the D&D game at my FLGS, the one who described his character as "rapey". The cleric of life with the overt goal of impregnating as many NPCs as possible. He offered a defeated female bandit the choice between *sex with him or summary execution*, I objected (playing a paladin), and *no one else at the table expressed any discomfort or concerns with his behavior*. The DM didn't gorram blink.

If anyone's about to claim "oh, that's a backwater thing, but it can't happen in the enlightened urban centers", then tell me which cities which are *more* progressive, liberal and/or feminist than San Francisco, because this happened in the outskirts of San Francisco, within commuting range.

Anyways, if you're still confused, what further explanation might be helpful?


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> I agree. There is a saying that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Contrariwise, any advancement of justice, sets a useful precedent and good example for the rest of human society. If this is your larger point, then I'm on board.
> 
> However...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. I have seen otherwise. If your life has, so far, only crossed paths with people who don't want to hang out with harassers, then you're doing something right, and I encourage you to keep doing it. But I consider this assertion recklessly, irresponsibly and dangerously inaccurate. I don't know how to summarize how many people's stories you are contradicting; people who were harassed (or worse), and after the harassment (or worse) came to light, the harasser remained popular and had a strong circle of support. I'm angry that you are ignoring or dismissing all those stories.
> 
> As one example, consider how many con groupies hang out with Benjamin "Sargon" Carl, whom Anita Sarkeesian names as one of her harassers. If you dismiss her accusations, fine; set aside this one example; I can list other examples, as needed. Here's another one: the former owner of the Miss Teen USA tournament, 2005 onwards, who delighted in surprise inspections of undressed teenage contestants. (Details, in his own words, in an earlier post.) (Hint: one of the people currently trying to hang out with him, a person of no small popularity himself, claims they both have "dragon energy"). Does that suffice, as an example or two to make my point? Would further examples be useful, or would debate over each example be useful?
> 
> One does not get the Titanic to New York's harbors, under the assumption that there are no icebergs in the Atlantic. One does not simply walk into Mordor, carrying the Ring, with the cheerful plan of "no one will oppose us along the way". One does not reduce con harassment without addressing push-back and counter-measures.
> 
> I hope this casual, carefree, confident assertion, about harassers having no buddies to support them, is secondary to your previous point, and that we can agree on the former while disagreeing with the latter.




Fundamentally the people hanging out with harassers are themselves harassers.  Just look at the language the people in this thread have used to defend harassers, they've defended harassment _with_ harassment.

It's not that harassers don't have friends.  Even the most terrible people in history had friends.  It's that being friends with harassers usually says something about that friend and what sort of person they are.  

Perhaps my language was unclear, it was to say people who do not want to be harassed, nor be harassers; do not hang out with harassers.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> Fundamentally the people hanging out with harassers are themselves harassers.  Just look at the language the people in this thread have used to defend harassers, they've defended harassment _with_ harassment.
> 
> It's not that harassers don't have friends.  Even the most terrible people in history had friends.  It's that being friends with harassers usually says something about that friend and what sort of person they are.
> 
> Perhaps my language was unclear, it was to say people who do not want to be harassed, nor be harassers; do not hang out with harassers.




Oh, okay. Thank you for explaining. Now I'm 100% with you, on this point at least. Though I've played D&D with some people I'd rather not leave alone with my sisters.

Building on your point about defending the freedom to harass, by applying harassment: there is a faction here, who don't want cons infringing on the freedom for men to do anything *right* up to the limit of the law. In practice, not the law as written but the willingness and ability of police and courts to take the process all the way to conviction, and there's abundant examples of the criminal justice system failing to discourage even the most blatant and physically violent forms of harassment and abuse. The way some participants have treated other participants, in the this thread, indicates Proficiency, even Expertise, in the skill of going right up the limit, and stopping JUST short of the line which would result in top-down consequences.

One time, I was kinda surprised that my post didn't result in a mod PMing me with "hey, you're getting near the line." I'm punching upwards; maybe that helps? I mean, it's not morally okay for me to harass Christian Grey, but on another hand, people are a bit slower to rush to his defense, because he's not a helpless innocent.


----------



## Umbran

Riley37 said:


> You have posted this in your community member role, rather than your Moderator role, if I understand correctly. Is this therefore fair game for dissent, disagrement, and debate? Is the thread open to counter-arguments, asserting that we don't need boundaries, and that we don't need enforcement?




Moderator action is not based on whether you agree with the moderator.  People disagree with mods all the time.  We're grown ups, and can handle that.  

That is not a promise that we won't find your disagreement problematic - but the fact that it is disagreement won't be the issue.


----------



## Riley37

Elfcrusher said:


> The impossibility of perfection is an objection often raised by those who are hoping nothing will be done at all.






Elfcrusher said:


> Or it's good strategy, if you're evil.




(applause)

This is pragmatic and realistic. Assuming that EVERYONE has good faith intentions towards the shared goal of reducing harassment, is right up there with the historical error of Neville Chamberlain, who bragged that he had secured "peace in our time".

If you interpret my posts, any of them, or all of them in total, as a call for maintaining the status quo, as a defense of "boys will be boys", then perhaps you have made an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) error. (I've detailed, at length, what I would gladly give up, to participate in a more-inclusive, less-tolerant-of-harassment BetaCon.) At least you haven't made the far worse error, of assuming that IFF is unnecessary because we're all friends here at EN World. Some of us are more accurately described as "fine people on both sides".

I could quibble on the word choice of "good", because "effective" carries less of a mixed message. But this thread has already met 100% of my daily recommended dosage of quibbling.


----------



## Riley37

Calithorne said:


> The game world is not going to be able to fix this societal problem by setting up rules and committees.  The problem is too big to solve.




This is not the attitude which Gandalf brought to the Council of Elrond. Perhaps you agree more with Denethor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjAAC13al9s


----------



## Hussar

As far as policies for who deals with harassment complaints at a con, I'm not sure committee is really even feasible at a lot of cons.  Most cons are pretty small and run by a few people who are insanely busy for the con.  Expecting a group to be able to deal with complaints might be difficult when you only have such a small number of people on staff.  It is probably far more practical to simply have one person who is in charge of handing complaints and make sure that that person is known to be the person that you go to if you have a problem.

I mean, my teacher's association is running an event next month and we expect a few hundred attendees.  There's only three or four officers who are going to be present at the event.  That's not really feasible to have a harassment committee.  But, we do have a harassment policy posted clearly and everyone attending is expected to abide by it.


----------



## Garthanos

Calithorne said:


> Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women.  I think the absence of fathers from many young men's lives is the biggest problem.  A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




Or perhaps directly shown by example.


----------



## Lylandra

Calithorne said:


> Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women.  I think the absence of fathers from many young men's lives is the biggest problem.  A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




I agree with you on the first statement. But the second one is very problematic and I doubt there is much truth to it. 

So to end harassment, we need to educate those who might become (or already are) harassers on what kind of behavior is okay and what kind is not. 

So yes, kids will learn from role-models, which include, but are not limited to, their parents, siblings or other relatives. They also learn from their surroundings, be that various media (books, TV shows, youtube videos), their peers, their neighbors or teachers. 

Kids also learn to respect certain boundaries by authority figures who enforce them. 

To reduce the complex process on forming a mature personality that includes "respecting women" and "don't harass people" to missing fathers is very far-fetched. 

So, why is the statement problematic? 

1) Because the underlying message is that no one has as much of a positive formative effect on a son's behavior towards, and relationship with women as a father.

2) Because this basically calls for traditional relationships (father-mother-kids) as being "the best" for sons AND society as a whole and dismisses the accomplishments of single moms or other non-traditional child-rearing environments.

3) Because oftentimes, kids who become abusive stem from abusive/authorative households where "might makes right" is the common method of education. And domestic violence figures show that violence against the mother is also commonplace in such environments.

4) Because sons can totally respect their "sacred" mothers and sisters while also being giant asses towards any other women who are not part of their family. 

What I would call for instead is trying to emphasize on empathy when it comes to educating boys, especially younger boys. You don't harass if you are good at feeling empathy towards other people. You are also better at getting nonverbal clues. And this can be taught by everyone, including, but not limited to, male role models.


----------



## Hussar

The whole "things used to be better" myth just flies straight up my nose.


Cosby had been raping women for FORTY YEARS.  Do you honestly think he was the only one?  Weinstein's been a scumbag for about the same amount of time.  Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl in the 70's and never spent a minute in jail.

Do you honestly think, a woman had it better thirty years ago?  Fifty?  A hundred?


----------



## Riley37

Calithorne said:


> A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




Citation needed.

I was once a young man with a father, and your description does not match my experience.

Can you show that my experience was atypical, and a young men with a father *usually* gets cuffed on the head when he disrespects his mother or sisters? Got sources, got links, got percentages? Do you even have an anecdote? Are you explaining Anakin's turn towards the Dark Side, on the grounds that the midichlorions never took him fishing?

Or are you making stuff up, and blatantly asserting it regardless of those pesky "numerical facts", as a set-up towards "this isn't our problem and we can't solve it", and also for "when two women get married, and have a son, then we need to take the son away from his mothers"? If so, just cut to the chase and demand MORE PATRIARCHY NOW, which includes those arguments and many others as well. Get it over with. We see you.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Calithorne said:


> There is no solution to this problem because the entire world is filled with bad people who act badly and our society reinforces boorish behavior by portraying it favorably on TV shows that children watch.
> 
> For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs.
> 
> The game world is not going to be able to fix this societal problem by setting up rules and committees.  The problem is too big to solve.




This is essentially nonsense, there has been a lot of social change over the last 500 years and it all usually started with somebody writing a pamphlet or treatise, the early modern equivalent of a post on the internet.

Louis XIV outlawed duelling late in his reign and it did not have any immediate effect but when was the last time a prominent citizen died in a duel?

we don't murder each other as much as we used to and so on. If we just throw up our hands and despair then nothing will happen but progress is made by people starting the impossible and giving it a go.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Calithorne said:


> Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women.  I think the absence of fathers from many young men's lives is the biggest problem.  A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




I find this post hugely problematic.  I think its well-intentioned, but suggests some backward attitudes.

"I think the absence of fathers..."
This _might_ be innocuous, but it smacks of judgment/criticism/stereotyping of another demographic group that just happens to have a lot of absent fathers (largely because our horribly biased judicial system imprisons so many of them). Offhand references to absent fathers has a connotation of "those people" making "bad decisions", and is a huge red flag.  Yes, you can defend the assertion with statistics, and I don't mean to claim that you can't invoke the truth because it suggests something politically incorrect, but statistics are a double-edged sword: they can both inform unbiased views and be a _post facto _rationalization for biased views.  Absence of father is a convenient simplification, but it ignores the very high correlation between absent fathers and repeated childhood trauma, severe socioeconomic disadvantage, the worst schools, remaining parent also absent because working 2 or 3 jobs (or also incarcerated), and constant messaging from society and culture that you're a second-class citizen.  

"A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head..."
Pretty much ALL the research shows that corporal punishment is damaging long term.  Sure, it can produce the _behaviors_ that the parents desire, but that's because the child is afraid of punishment, not because they internalize the reasoning.  You stop punching your sister not because you are empathetic, but because you don't want mom or dad to hit you.  The problem is that children are astute observers of what their parents model, and they learn far more from observation/inference than from our words.  So the child learns that superior physical strength, and the willingness to use force/violence, is a valid way to coerce behavior.  Uh-oh.  See where that's leading?

Personally, I don't think a parent who smacks a child has any business criticizing another parent for being absent.

"Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women."
Nothing wrong with this assertion per se, but in the the context of the rest of the post I have to wonder if "women" isn't synonymous with "ladies" in this case.  In other words, is the sentiment "people should treat all other people with respect", or is it, "men should be gallant gentlemen around the more delicate sex"?  If the latter, we have a problem, Houston.

EDIT: Lylandra beat me to some of it.  I hadn't caught up on the whole thread.


----------



## kenmarable

Hussar said:


> The whole "things used to be better" myth just flies straight up my nose.
> 
> 
> Cosby had been raping women for FORTY YEARS.  Do you honestly think he was the only one?  Weinstein's been a scumbag for about the same amount of time.  Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl in the 70's and never spent a minute in jail.
> 
> Do you honestly think, a woman had it better thirty years ago?  Fifty?  A hundred?




Agreed. There is a world of difference between: “This was not a problem before.” and “This was not a problem _that was talked about_ before.”


----------



## Jeanneliza

Calithorne said:


> Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women.  I think the absence of fathers from many young men's lives is the biggest problem.  A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




No just no. Others here have all ready explained the problem with your thinking to you. I am just going to leave you with a few better known names, we'll label them exhibits.
Exhibit A: Bill Cosby, convicted serial harasser and rapist.  Raised in a two parent family.
Exhibit B: Our current president, an admitted serial harasser. Raised in a WEALTHY two parent family.
Exhibit C: Roy Moore accused serial harasser, two parent family, his father didn't die until he was 20.
Exhibit D: Barack Obama, raised by a single mother and grandparents. As hated as he is no one has made an allegation about him harassing women.


----------



## Jeanneliza

ardoughter said:


> This is essentially nonsense, there has been a lot of social change over the last 500 years and it all usually started with somebody writing a pamphlet or treatise, the early modern equivalent of a post on the internet.
> 
> Louis XIV outlawed duelling late in his reign and it did not have any immediate effect but when was the last time a prominent citizen died in a duel?
> 
> we don't murder each other as much as we used to and so on. If we just throw up our hands and despair then nothing will happen but progress is made by people starting the impossible and giving it a go.




Pamphlets are good. In the discussion about how to present a harassment policy, it can be both. Posted signs with the brief version, pamphlets in every Con goers guest packet with details?

By the way guys I am really happy to see on this thread a fair number of men who are seeing the same problems with a lot of these statements usually only women see. Well Done.

On other points, to he who said we "CAN'T'" the problem is too big. In the words of my freshman Civics teacher, back in 1970, "Can't never did anything." However life experience teaches me CAN'T is the go to cry of those unwilling to do anything and their refusal to recognize their unwillingness to make any effort at all.
"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem". I first heard this in Dr. Zuhl, Dean of Student Services at the first college I went to, poster on his wall.


----------



## Sadras

Simply wow!



Elfcrusher said:


> I find this post hugely problematic.  I think its well-intentioned, but suggests some backward attitudes.
> 
> "I think the absence of fathers..."
> This _might_ be innocuous, but it smacks of judgment/criticism/stereotyping of another demographic group that just happens to have a lot of absent fathers (largely because our horribly biased judicial system imprisons so many of them). Offhand references to absent fathers has a connotation of "those people" making "bad decisions", and is a huge red flag.  Yes, you can defend the assertion with statistics, and I don't mean to claim that you can't invoke the truth because it suggests something politically incorrect, but statistics are a double-edged sword: they can both inform unbiased views and be a _post facto _rationalization for biased views.  Absence of father is a convenient simplification, but it ignores the very high correlation between absent fathers and repeated childhood trauma, severe socioeconomic disadvantage, the worst schools, remaining parent also absent because working 2 or 3 jobs (or also incarcerated), and constant messaging from society and culture that you're a second-class citizen.




The poster makes a comment about _absent fathers_ and you start inflecting other societal issues into their post.   



> "A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head..."
> Pretty much ALL the research shows that corporal punishment is damaging long term.  Sure, it can produce the _behaviors_ that the parents desire, but that's because the child is afraid of punishment, not because they internalize the reasoning.  You stop punching your sister not because you are empathetic, but because you don't want mom or dad to hit you.  The problem is that children are astute observers of what their parents model, and they learn far more from observation/inference than from our words.  So the child learns that superior physical strength, and the willingness to use force/violence, is a valid way to coerce behavior.  Uh-oh.  See where that's leading?




Apparently cuffed on the head = corporal punishment
Disrespects = punching



> "Parents should be teaching their sons how to behave themselves around women."
> Nothing wrong with this assertion per se, but in the the context of the rest of the post I have to wonder if "women" isn't synonymous with "ladies" in this case.  In other words, is the sentiment "people should treat all other people with respect", or is it, "men should be gallant gentlemen around the more delicate sex"?  If the latter, we have a problem, Houston.




Again inferring.

Alarmist much?


----------



## MNblockhead

ardoughter said:


> This is essentially nonsense, there has been a lot of social change over the last 500 years and it all usually started with somebody writing a pamphlet or treatise, the early modern equivalent of a post on the internet.
> 
> Louis XIV outlawed duelling late in his reign and it did not have any immediate effect but when was the last time a prominent citizen died in a duel?
> 
> we don't murder each other as much as we used to and so on. If we just throw up our hands and despair then nothing will happen but progress is made by people starting the impossible and giving it a go.




Yeah, I don't get this defeatist attitude. I can understand feeling frustrated with the pace of progress but to deny the possibility of progress smacks of mental illness. Or posturing. 

Obligatory Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."


----------



## Afrodyte

How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sadras said:


> Alarmist much?




Nope.

Wish I knew magic words to open your eyes, but I don't.

P.S.  And, yes, "cuffed on the head" _is_ corporal punishment.  For a child, being struck (not in play) by an adult, especially a parent, is traumatic.  It doesn't actually matter how much it hurts; it's the symbolism of using physical force to coerce behavior that causes damage.  I'd suggest you actually read some research before spouting nonsense on this issue.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?




Ah yes, the old "you can lead a horse to water...." conundrum. 
 As someone who has done some marketing and promotion, the trick is to find a title they will find compelling enough to say "WTH?" and read it to SEE WTH. What that might entail to catch the attention of gamers I would have to consider.

_(Trying to find a way to work castrate into that banner...)_


----------



## Sadras

Elfcrusher said:


> Nope. I used to be as oblivious/naive as you apparently are.  Wish I knew magic words to open your eyes, but I don't.




Absentee fathers or single parent households is not a one-colour issue, sadly it is very much a societal norm these days, I also wish you knew magic words then maybe we both wouldn't be so oblivious/naive.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Afrodyte said:


> How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?




I have multiple answers to this but I will stick with the serious one. Agreed, aside from the slightly mad people like me, very few people read these things ( and I do not do it consistently). However, most people that fall afoul of a T&C or EULA are on the other end of an electronic device and now cannot access MS Live or upload to YouTube on their normal handle and we don't hear about them. They do not usually boast about being banned on Xbox live for harassment or whatever. 

However, if you see a chap being escorted off the premises at a con then you are aware you can get booted from the con for bad behaviour. It might make you read the T&C, moreso if you are acquainted with the person booted from the Con.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Jeanneliza said:


> Ah yes, the old "you can lead a horse to water...." conundrum.
> As someone who has done some marketing and promotion, the trick is to find a title they will find compelling enough to say "WTH?" and read it to SEE WTH. What that might entail to catch the attention of gamers I would have to consider.
> 
> _(Trying to find a way to work castrate into that banner...)_




Don't know about castrate but you could use castigate. it close enough and the mind will go there. 

Sexual harassers will be castigated.....


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Actually I have got it.

Sexual harasseress will be  castrated .... Castigated


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sadras said:


> Absentee fathers or single parent households is not a one-colour issue, sadly it is very much a societal norm these days.




Ah, so you only skimmed what I initially wrote.  



> Yes, you can defend the assertion with statistics, and I don't mean to claim that you can't invoke the truth because it suggests something politically incorrect, but statistics are a double-edged sword: they can both inform unbiased views and be a post facto rationalization for biased views.




So, yes, in theory absentee fathers can be discussed without racist undertones, but the post in question make three points:
 - Sons should be taught to treat women well 
 - Absentee fathers are the problem here 
 - Kids should be smacked upside the head

There is a theme of conservative paternalism, which often goes hand-in-hand with latent racism.  

Of course, anybody who thinks conservative paternalism is the right and proper way of things is not going to see the pattern.

The defense that "absentee fathers or single parent households is not a one-colour issue" is an absolute red herring.


----------



## pemerton

Afrodyte said:


> How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?



I am very far from expert in any sorts of event management or behaviour-change management. So what follows is based on intuitions from more abstract and generic study of social norm formation and promulgation.

I think a lot of people will treat a policy like terms and conditions. I think what will make it salient is, over time, knowledge of enforcement and the response of people to enforcement. I don't think this will make more people read the policy. I think it will help the standards in the policy be taken up as behavioural norms. To put what I think is the same idea in slightly different terms: I think what will make the standards effective is not that people intellectually understand them and bring their behaviour into conformity, but rather that people experience them as social expectations, and so bring their behaviour into conformity in the same (non-rational) sort of way that they conform with other social expectations.

If what I'm conjecturing is right, or even partly right, I think it reinforces how important it is for event organisers to apply the standards they set for their events, and to not be afraid of applying them publicly. I think this is how norms are promulgated and become part of everyday social expectations.

I am going to take the risk of putting forward an imperfect and possibly controversial comparison - I hope the controversy is not too much. I live in a country that recently had a nationwide "plebisicite" on whether or not the national Marriage Act should be amended to permit same-sex marriage. Many people opposed the holding of the plebiscite, on the grounds that it would stir up vicious debate. (And as a matter of law the plebisicite was unnecessary - it was purely an officially-sanctioned opinion poll, similar in that respect to the Brexit plebiscite in the UK, and not needed to bring about the legislative change, which required only an Act of Parliament.)

When those people lost that argument (both politically and in a court case), they then campaigned hard and - despite some viciousness from the other side - won the plebiscite itself in a 60/40 vote. For those who were not part of that process, it is hard to describe what it was like to have so many affirmative stories (about love, about relationships, about parents and children, about inclusion, about pluralism, about the value of embracing diversity) being told so often, in public, shaping the national discussion and the national vote. One person whom I've known for nearly 20 years, and whom when I first met him would have thought the whole debate an unnecessary sideshow and might even have voted no, had a huge Yes poster proudly displayed on his office door.

What changed him, and what changed the country - of which he is just as representative as anyone who would have voted yes 20 years ago - wasn't an intellectual process. The society wasn't changed by _argument_. The vicious opposition wasn't defeated by way of an _intellectual_ process. The country was changed by some people being bravely public (about their lives, about who they loved and lived with, about who their children loved, etc) and some others joining and supporting them, and over time - but very rapidly compared to some other changes in human communitieis - changing the balance of normative expectations. The opposition was not _refuted_. It was simply revealed as out of touch with the community it was purporting to speak for.

Like I said, the comparison is imperfect for all sorts of reasons. Still, I think articles like the OP, and threads like this, can help in the same sort of process of changing norms around harassing behaviour. But because they happen online, in a medium that people who don't like the signals can opt out of, they have limits. I think signals that are sent in "real life", that people participating in public RPGing can't avoid and can't pretend are from some irrelevant "leftist" minority, are what will make the bigger difference.

I hope this post might seem optimistic (about what can be achieved) and not just pessimistic (about how quickly or effectively it can be achieved).


----------



## Sunseeker

Elfcrusher said:


> Nope.
> 
> Wish I knew magic words to open your eyes, but I don't.
> 
> P.S.  And, yes, "cuffed on the head" _is_ corporal punishment.  For a child, being struck (not in play) by an adult, especially a parent, is traumatic.  It doesn't actually matter how much it hurts; it's the symbolism of using physical force to coerce behavior that causes damage.  I'd suggest you actually read some research before spouting nonsense on this issue.




I've been hit by my dad _twice_ ever.  I don't remember exactly when (I think I was ~10) and I don't remember what it was for, but I still flinch when my dad raises his hand in completely non-threatening ways.  I'm 32.


----------



## Mick Price

Paraxis said:


> Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.
> 
> You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.
> 
> The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.
> 
> [This is almost the exact same comment you made last time you were threadbanned for defending harassment at conventions. This time it's not just a threadban. - Morrus]




This isn't being a "player" this is being an offensive inconsiderate and yes a harrasser.  Sure you have to put yourself out there, but when you get a rejection you take it.  You don't turn up later the same day saying "We know each other now".  Nor do you talk about the great view down someone's shirt when they clearly aren't interested in your attentions.  I am no feminist, in fact I'm anti-feminist in a lot of ways, but this isn't about feminism, it's about decency and respect.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

Afrodyte said:


> How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?




In general: By having the moment of registration not be the only time the attendees are exposed to the topic.  

So, some items that can probably help:

The act of enforcement tends to create awareness, even if the Converntion doesn't publicize it.  Conventions tend to be community affairs, such that there is a grapevine.  "Hey, did you hear about Joe?  He got banned from the con for X..."

Make the existence of the policy, and it's importance, part of pre-convention publications.

Send convention staff to relevant training - they will discuss it with their friends, and word spreads.  Make that trainign a relevant point in pre-convention status communications.

Have relevant communications up around the conventiuon area - "Cosplay is not consent" posters are becoming common, as one example.  

Have convention safety/security people visibly nearby the dances and parties.

Have appropriate topics on the convention panel discussion schedule.  Have your major guests take part in public discussiosn of related topics.  

Keep representation balance in mind when inviting guests.


----------



## Sadras

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, so you only skimmed what I initially wrote.




No I read it all, I just chose to comment on one thing alone in my second post.  



> So, yes, in theory absentee fathers can be discussed without racist undertones, but the post in question make three points:
> - Sons should be taught to treat women well
> - Absentee fathers are the problem here
> - Kids should be smacked upside the head
> 
> There is a theme of conservative paternalism, which often goes hand-in-hand with latent racism.
> 
> Of course, anybody who thinks conservative paternalism is the right and proper way of things is not going to see the pattern




Are you seriously accusing the poster of having a racist agenda from that single post? 
Given that we are discussing Sexual Harassment at Cons, the race issue has not been mentioned, to the best of my knowledge (and I haven't read this entire thread). 

The way I read it and would expect it to be understood is that we have a societal issue with the family unit breaking down, lack of discipline is increasing in kids, male role models are hard to come by...etc.

Maybe I am naive, as not once did I think the poster was making a race claim. And SPF is white!



> The defense that "absentee fathers or single parent households is not a one-colour issue" is an absolute red herring.




I did not intend it to be a red herring it was said in earnest. I have a sister and a good friend that within this last year both became single parents shortly after their second child.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Calithorne said:


> There is no solution to this problem because the entire world is filled with bad people who act badly and our society reinforces boorish behavior by portraying it favorably on TV shows that children watch.
> 
> For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs



Looking at the example from entertainment. The acceptance of the behavior displayed in TV and movies has changed over the years. Just look at Bugs Bunny if you need examples.

"Many cartoons from previous decades are routinely edited on international television (and on some video and DVD collections) today. Usually, the only censorship deemed necessary is the cutting of the occasional racist joke, instance of graphic violence, or scene of a character doing something that parents and watchdog groups fear children will try to imitate, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, or self-harming activities such as depictions of suicide.

(Tom & Jerry example - the link is below)

However, racial themes are so prominent in these cartoons that United Artists believed that no amount of selective editing could ever make them acceptable for distribution.

(history stuff)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3 ... warns the audience about some of these shorts, stating that although the behavior was and is not acceptable, the cartoons depicting this are a vital part of history and should not be forgotten. The Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 4 collection includes a similar disclaimer, written on a gold card and merely summarized the point that while the cartoons are considered offensive today for what they depict, they are going to be shown uncut because editing out the racist depictions—and therefore effectively saying the racist scenes were never there and that the racism of the era ever happened—is worse than actually showing them uncensored." http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/Censored_Eleven

Looking back at other things from the time of Cheers: Sixteen Candles includes one male character giving a drunk and unconscious Caroline to Farmer Ted and telling Ted to do what he wants with her. Ted leaves with Caroline and has sex with her while she is in no way able to give consent. Later, Caroline is okay with the fact that someone had sex with her unconscious body. Where my younger self thought the overall movie was sweet, it makes my skin crawl and I describe the film a showing rape in a positive light. The lack of respect for Caroline's bodily autonomy is my main issue with the film.

(Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead.)

TLDR: The behaviors shown in TV, film, and other modes of entertainment change with what is acceptable in society at the time they are made. Change what is acceptable and you change the content. Note the lack of black face in modern entertainment.

(Edit typos)


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

Calithorne said:


> For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs.




*WAS*

Sam *was* harassing women.  It *was* played for laughs.

That series ended _a quarter century ago_.  

Meanwhile, a more modern sitcom like, say, Community, has a philandering womanizer as a main character, and this is shown to be a character flaw, and his growth arc includes leaving that behavior behind.  The show also has much better gender and racial balance than Cheers.




Calithorne said:


> A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.




Except, of course, if his father is a misogynist lout, in which case this behavior wil be supported.


----------



## Particle_Man

To get around the terms and conditions issue maybe have a lot of “Here is what to do if you have been harassed” posters everywhere. That might make people actually read the other stuff that says what behaviour won’t be tolerated.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Particle_Man said:


> To get around the terms and conditions issue maybe have a lot of “Here is what to do if you have been harassed” posters everywhere. That might make people actually read the other stuff that says what behaviour won’t be tolerated.




I'd love to see a short quiz that tests whether or not they actually read the T&C prior to signing, but I fear that would be unwieldy

Things that can easily happen:
 - Having the T&C's displayed prominently around the con. Even broken down into smaller pieces so they are easier to be taken in at a glance.
 - Having a few high profile sessions include a pre-show that includes information on both the policy, how to report issues, and the results of breaking it. (It has to be at the beginning or else those most in need of the information will walk out.)
 - Greeting and reminding people to be on their best behavior as they join certain activities - dances, other social events.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sadras said:


> Are you seriously accusing the poster of having a racist agenda from that single post?




Alas, the gross misunderstanding (or intentional misconstruing) continues.  

I am suggesting the poster may have racist/sexist/paternalistic beliefs that _he may not even realize he has_.

Do you understand the distinction?

And again, I'm not saying his words are proof this; they are evidence.  Red flags.  It's _possible_ that he wasn't thinking of a specific race/culture when he mentioned absent fathers. It's _possible_ he meant "smack upside the head" purely metaphorically.  It's _possible_ he meant "teach kids to respect each other" and not "teach boys to think ladies need their protection".

But I suspect not.  I sense a pattern.  I could be wrong.

Look, I'm not condemning him as an evil person.  Heck, my dad could have written that post.  It's a pretty common attitude from white males who aren't aware of their unearned privilege.  It's an awareness issue, not a malice issue.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## kenmarable

RedJenOSU said:


> I'd love to see a short quiz that tests whether or not they actually read the T&C prior to signing, but I fear that would be unwieldy
> 
> Things that can easily happen:
> - Having the T&C's displayed prominently around the con. Even broken down into smaller pieces so they are easier to be taken in at a glance.
> - Having a few high profile sessions include a pre-show that includes information on both the policy, how to report issues, and the results of breaking it. (It has to be at the beginning or else those most in need of the information will walk out.)
> - Greeting and reminding people to be on their best behavior as they join certain activities - dances, other social events.




Once I caught up on the thread, I was just going to recommend a quiz. At the university I work at, to get a parking pass, there's a short 3 question quiz dealing with parking rules and driving safety (i.e. crosswalks, etc.). I can easily see something like that during registration. It doesn't need to cover all or even most of the details. Just 2 or 3 questions hitting a couple major areas of question before they can register.

But also to echo others, making it as visible as possible is also necessary. Don't let attendees be able to go 15 minutes without see a poster or some sort of sign with clear statements/slogans. Have it on staff shirts or on buttons staff wear, etc.

Or - I have no idea if this is dumb or not but just I'll just throw it out there - make it a game. Have like 7 different slogans or something on various posters throughout the convention, and anyone who finds and writes down them all gets entered into a raffle or whatever. It at least gets them looking for the posters rather than having their brain filter them out as background noise. *shrug*

I also like the idea of aiming the message not just at the potential harassers ("This is what you should not do!") but at the potential victims and witnesses ("Watch out for this behavior!") since it both educates and centers them, but it still is a message to potential harassers that other attendees are looking for them. I guess maybe rather than saying "Here's a rule, please don't break it." instead saying "Be on the lookout for someone breaking this rule." has a slightly better chance of creating a bit of paranoia among potential harassers, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Plus, most people wouldn't consider themselves a potential harasser and so might filter out "Don't do this" messages, but most people might consider themselves potential victims or witnesses, and therefore are more likely to read messages aimed at them in that context, which still builds an awareness that can influence their own behavior.


----------



## Jeanneliza

well after the initial few days of naysayers, this has evolved to real discussion of possible solutions, or steps towards those solutions.

All of what you guys have suggested is good.

My final thought, a half dozen ideas of the best way to present the info to insure everyone or as many as possible are aware of it.
I vote for ALL of the above. The more ubiquitous the information and warnings are the faster they sink into some level of consciousness. Posters, pamphlets, (I like the game idea), signed ToS, discussion groups, event organizers wearing buttons, after a while it is pretty hard to escape the info, and undermines any attempt at "the but I didn't know...." defense.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Here's how I'd do a quiz:

1. Have a table/booth where you take a quiz on a screen.  The questions should be non-trivial, with subtle distinctions.  
2. Lots and lots of questions.  Get five (or 10 or whatever) in a row right and you get a button/badge.  The button proclaims the wearer's victory, and has a unique QR code on it.
3. During the convention, people wearing the button have a chance to win prizes.
4. Encourage vendors to do something for people with buttons (give them a sticker, let them enter a raffle, etc.).

If the majority of the convention attendees are aware of the issues, the buttons will be considered cool, and the bad apples will feel pressure to take the quiz.  Just taking the quiz (if it's designed well) will raise awareness.

If the buttons don't turn into a cool thing that will be an indication of the prevailing sentiment.


----------



## Gradine

lowkey13 said:


> Bingo. So much this.
> 
> There are so many examples. One would be alcoholism; if you go back, alcoholics were always portrayed as creatures of comedy. W.C. Fields, Dean Martin, etc. Even as late as, arguably, Arthur (and even that had some less pleasant undertones) an alcoholic would be the "comedic" character. Now? Heck no.




Hell, to bring this conversation full circle, Frog God Games was posting jokes about CEO Bill Webb's infamous drunkenness _after_ he was told to sober and leave up PaizoCon for sexual harassment and injuring a con employee who tried to intervene.

This was _less than a year ago_, mind you.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Particle_Man

Have you heard of consent captains? Would this be useful?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-consent-captain-1.4654210


----------



## Sadras

Gradine said:


> Hell, to bring this conversation full circle, Frog God Games was posting jokes about CEO Bill Webb's infamous drunkenness _after_ he was told to sober and leave up PaizoCon for sexual harassment and injuring a con employee who tried to intervene.
> 
> This was _less than a year ago_, mind you.




That is bad form.

EDIT: And surprising given how clear and firm it seemed to be handled by partner Matt Finch in this article. Maybe there was more to it that I am not aware.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Elfcrusher said:


> Alas, the gross misunderstanding (or intentional misconstruing) continues.
> 
> I am suggesting the poster may have racist/sexist/paternalistic beliefs that _he may not even realize he has_.
> 
> Do you understand the distinction?
> 
> And again, I'm not saying his words are proof this; they are evidence.  Red flags.  It's _possible_ that he wasn't thinking of a specific race/culture when he mentioned absent fathers. It's _possible_ he meant "smack upside the head" purely metaphorically.  It's _possible_ he meant "teach kids to respect each other" and not "teach boys to think ladies need their protection".
> 
> But I suspect not.  I sense a pattern.  I could be wrong.
> 
> Look, I'm not condemning him as an evil person.  Heck, my dad could have written that post.  It's a pretty common attitude from white males who aren't aware of their unearned privilege.  It's an awareness issue, not a malice issue.




So thinking a stable mother + father family unit is best for a child, which from pretty much everything I've read is true when you track financial and criminal status of kids as they grow up, is a sign of latent racism?


----------



## Afrodyte

Particle_Man said:


> Have you heard of consent captains? Would this be useful?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-consent-captain-1.4654210




I really like the buttons! Merch is a great tool!


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

lowkey13 said:


> So I don't want to threadjack, but to respond to your question-
> 
> With regards to the facts, it is trivially easy to say that a two-parent (remember SSM?) household will do better than a single parent household in most circumstances. There isn't much magic about this; because of the way that our tax code is set up,* and because of the way that partners can structure their lives, childcare and child rearing is much easier.
> 
> To put it another way- when there are two people, they have fewer expenses and a greater income, and they can more easily divide their time in terms of child care, going to school events, helping with homework, etc.
> 
> For that reason, the things that you have read are more ambiguous than you might think; it is exceptionally difficult to tease out the many advantages that accrue from growing up in a two-parent household and make a comparison to determine what, exactly, is the "pure benefit" of growing up with two parents. It's not like a separated twins study, which tends to be a lot easier to draw conclusions from.
> 
> But that's slightly different than the question you have about "latent racism." This is more complicated; as @_*Elfcrusher*_ wrote, it doesn't mean that that person is racist, or even necessarily has latent racism. It's more .... a red flag. Think of it this way- it's the type of language that is strongly correlated with other beliefs, and is often used for particular purposes (either discussing, from a certain point of view, black families in America, or espousing a belief, for example, that women in abusive relationships should suck it up for the kids).
> 
> It's sort of like when I see someone complaining about "thugs." The person might be talking about followers of the goddess Kali. Or maybe they really don't like the foot-soldiers of the Italian mob. Or maybe they are just using that phrase innocently (like we do in TTRPGS!). Unfortunately, I have come to realize that the vast majority of the time I see that particular word, I am about to see a release of other words I am not a big fan of.
> 
> 
> *Yes, even with the "marriage penalty."
> 
> EDIT- to be clear, I am not saying that people shouldn't use words, and discuss topics. But, perhaps if you are of a different political persuasion, think of it in terms of seeing the word "privilege." I am sure that there are those who see that term and believe that they are likely to see a constellation of related terms, even though that particular word can be used in all sorts of contexts (privileges and immunities, right not a privilege**, etc.).
> 
> **Which is meaningless, but still a go-to for parents!




Thanks for a good faith reply.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> Except, of course, if his father is a misogynist lout, in which case this behavior wil be supported.




Supported? Pfft. Most likely modeled the behavior that his kid now follows.


----------



## Particle_Man

One thing I noticed on links given earlier in this forum thread on how to do this stuff is there should be an option for anonymous reporting.  This means that the follow up can't report back to the anonymous reporter, though.  Maybe as an option ("you can report harassment anonymously (and it will be investigated) or you can leave enough email for us to submit to you a follow up report of the investigation within 24 hours; your call")?


----------



## Afrodyte

This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?

Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.


----------



## Umbran

Particle_Man said:


> One thing I noticed on links given earlier in this forum thread on how to do this stuff is there should be an option for anonymous reporting.  This means that the follow up can't report back to the anonymous reporter, though.  Maybe as an option ("you can report harassment anonymously (and it will be investigated) or you can leave enough email for us to submit to you a follow up report of the investigation within 24 hours; your call")?




Or, the convention can give some generic reporting to the community in general. "We had X reports of Y incidents.  Of those, Z were found to be actionable.  N people were given warnings or reprimands, M were found to be so severe that they will not be joining us in future years."  

Note that publicly reporting the names of the accused is a thorny area, and most conventions won't do it.  Since Conventions are not courts of law, their findings, while good enough for their own uses, may not be considered solid enough for public announcement.  The attendee typically has no recourse if the con decides they must be removed form the current or future cons, but actions that reach into the accused's private life put the Convention organizaton at risk.  If the Convention is wrong about their assessment, and the anouncement impacts the busienss or home life of the accused (say, they are a vendor and go under, or their marriage breaks up over it), the convention organization might be subject to lawsuit.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Afrodyte said:


> This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?
> 
> Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.




But WE PERSISTED.


----------



## Caliban

Afrodyte said:


> This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?
> 
> Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.




<cynicism>Banhammer for the win.  Silence all the dissenters and solutions will just write themselves. </cynicism>

<condescending>Members of the "Men's Rights" crowd simply don't have the endurance for prolonged debate.  They complain loudly, pat themselves on the back for a job well done, then move on to the next debate that needs their input. </condescending>


----------



## Umbran

Okay, now I have to do this publicly...

If a conflict needed a moderator to resolve it, we ask that afterwards, both sides drop it.  We are sorry if it gets in the way of you making a point, but we ask you to not take potshots at people after the conflict is over.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TheCosmicKid

lowkey13 said:


> EDIT- to be clear, I am not saying that people shouldn't use words, and discuss topics.



Wait, don't be too hasty. Not using words and discussing topics would avoid a lot of these issues. So let's give this suggestion some real thought. But not discuss it, of course.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Shasarak

lowkey13 said:


> There are so many examples. One would be alcoholism; if you go back, alcoholics were always portrayed as creatures of comedy. W.C. Fields, Dean Martin, etc. Even as late as, arguably, Arthur (and even that had some less pleasant undertones) an alcoholic would be the "comedic" character. Now? Heck no.




There is a famous alcoholic cartoon character that is more well known around the world then the President of the US of A.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Shasarak said:


> There is a famous alcoholic cartoon character that is more well known around the world then the President of the US of A.




Ok, I'm blanking on that one?


----------



## Riley37

Afrodyte said:


> This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?
> 
> Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.




That question was bubbling towards articulation in my mind, as I scrolled through new-to-me posts, when reached this post in which you zoom out to observe the shift. I agree that the factor you name, is not the tipping point.

I rule out the factor of "someone asked for specific methods", because a man raised a set of four question back around page 60, and then the difficult question of what people would *give up* to make change possible. At most a handful of people posted direct answers to his questions. I did so at length and no one pointed out the flaws in my answers to the question (nor any merits, if my answer had any merits). I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of follow-up.

(By the way, what I would give up, boils down to "I would give up behaviors associated with rape culture"; even a person who denies that rape culture exists, or is uncomfortable with the phrase, could still waive that set of behaviors, as defined by those examples.)

I don't *see* anyone trying the radical move of asking "Hey, women in this conversation, what might make you safer and feel safer?" If someone did ask that question, *directing it explicitly towards women*, then I missed it and I'm sorry I missed it. (Also: there are a few people outside the Big Two categories, and I'm interested in their safety too.)

(And no, I haven't asked that question, not directly, but I make some effort to offer my answers to questions from any participant flagged as a women, such as the question I am trying to answer in this post.)

A participant posted a specific con policy statement - maybe that helped - and that person posted in their participant role, but they're also known as a mod, which might also have helped.

There's been attrition over time. The ratio of those still in the game, to those with "skin in the game", may have changed. We can rule out "the Boys Will Be Boys crowd all left", because that hasn't happened, not as of your post raising the question. Though I kinda hope it helped when some of us, including myself, raised the question of "is this a conversation which includes pro-change and anti-change voices, or is it only for pro-change and how to change".

What am I missing?


----------



## Hussar

Particle_Man said:


> One thing I noticed on links given earlier in this forum thread on how to do this stuff is there should be an option for anonymous reporting.  This means that the follow up can't report back to the anonymous reporter, though.  Maybe as an option ("you can report harassment anonymously (and it will be investigated) or you can leave enough email for us to submit to you a follow up report of the investigation within 24 hours; your call")?




How would anonymous reporting work at a con or store though?  You send an email to someone about someone else's behavior?  But, then, the email can be tracked back to you.  I had thought that anonymous meant that while the con organizers would know who you are, because you talked to them to make the complaint, you privacy would be respected and no one else would be told.

I'm not sure how that would actually work in practice to have harassment complaints be totally anonymous.  



Afrodyte said:


> This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?
> 
> Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.




Well, OTOH, people stopping complaining about how their mistaken examples are being fact checked has helped the tone of the thread considerably as well.  Personally, if your point requires faulty facts, then your point isn't as strong as you think it is.  I welcome people to fact check my points and certainly wouldn't get all annoyed when I was shown to be mistaken on a specific point.


----------



## Shasarak

ardoughter said:


> Ok, I'm blanking on that one?




D'oh


----------



## Anselyn

I quite like this take on the issue "accountable environment" - I hope it's not too tangential but this is the training being looked to by my university in ensuring we have safe spaces on campus.

"However, there are many steps that festivals can take in advance to create an accountable environment where:

– potential perpetrators will think twice before committing a crime
– lower level issues are more likely to be reported to you early, so you can deal with them prior to further escalation
– patrons feel more secure in the knowledge that your procedures will kick in something happens

Training on responding to disclosures of sexual harassment can often fall by the wayside for temporary festival staff and volunteers, or be limited to a vague ‘tell security.’ You wouldn’t dream of approaching your fire safety and evacuation protocols this way, both of which you’re much less likely to need – so don’t leave it to chance!"

See: http://www.goodnightoutcampaign.org/get-involved-festivals/


----------



## Rygar

Afrodyte said:


> This is, admittedly, a slight derail, but for anyone interested in a bit of personal reflection, has anyone else noticed how the quality of conversation has been much better over the past three to five pages or so, and how we're now actually talking about solutions to the problem? Why do you think that is?
> 
> Hint: it ain't because the women learned how to behave ourselves.




I would venture it's because that somewhere around the point where people started listing micro-aggressions as "Red flags" and then followed up with veiled accusations that anyone who disagreed must be a harasser, that everyone realized the thread was now just left wing politics instead of a discussion and we gave up trying to have conversations.

Probably didn't help when left wing activists started deriding posters if they didn't fall in line, and the mods (predictably) didn't censor any of them.  But post an acronym used commonly for left wing activists and they'll ban you in less than a page...


----------



## Garthanos

Elfcrusher said:


> Nope.
> 
> Wish I knew magic words to open your eyes, but I don't.
> 
> P.S.  And, yes, "cuffed on the head" _is_ corporal punishment.  For a child, being struck (not in play) by an adult, especially a parent, is traumatic.  It doesn't actually matter how much it hurts; it's the symbolism of using physical force to coerce behavior that causes damage.  I'd suggest you actually read some research before spouting nonsense on this issue.




Agreed pretty much any ambiguity is gone, either useless or prone to creating the same trauma and habits of violence that is associated with those abused. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768154/


----------



## Calithorne

I haven't read the entire thread because it is now more than 900 posts long, so I guess I missed the part where it is explained what convention hosts are supposed to do about guests who don't meet the standards of a harassment policy.

Will all accusations, whether or not proved, be acted on?

Or will there be a hearing held somewhere where both parties may present their side of the story, and a neutral arbitrator will make a decision?

Will the parties be permitted to hire legal counsel at these proceedings?

What will be the consequences if a person is found guilty of harrassment?


----------



## Calithorne

The penalties I see the #MeToo movement passing out are:

(1) destruction of reputation of the person accused.

(2) destruction of career and career opportunities of the person accused.

Also, there appears to be a presumption of guilt so that the accusers don't really have to prove anything.

And the penalties are the same for the man who rapes a woman and the man who simply says something rude to a woman.


----------



## Particle_Man

Since false accusations are so very  rare , relatively speaking, and since a con should be more concerned with safety than legal proof, they can do things, like ban someone from a con, without requiring legal proof.  It is a net benefit.  But really, you should read the thread when you can, as all your points were already considered and answered there.


----------



## Calithorne

Particle_Man said:


> Since false accusations are so very  rare , relatively speaking, and since a con should be more concerned with safety than legal proof, they can do things, like ban someone from a con, without requiring legal proof.  It is a net benefit.  But really, you should read the thread when you can, as all your points were already considered and answered there.




Does a man get banned for asking a woman for her phone number?


----------



## Particle_Man

Depends how he does it and if he takes no for an answer.


----------



## Calithorne

So really, any man can be banned from a con on the word of any woman, and there will be no need of proof.


----------



## Sunseeker

Calithorne said:


> So really, any man can be banned from a con on the word of any woman, and there will be no need of proof.




Since it's a private venue, they could ban you because they don't like the color of your shoes.

That's how private events work.


----------



## Calithorne

Certainly con organizers have a right to do as they please, I never said otherwise.

On the other hand, gamers are free to avoid cons that set themselves up as the Inquisition of the Anti-Sex League.


----------



## Sunseeker

Calithorne said:


> Certainly con organizers have a right to do as they please, I never said otherwise.
> 
> On the other hand, gamers are free to avoid cons that set themselves up as the Inquisition of the Anti-Sex League.




Don't let the door hit ya where the dog shoulda' bit ya.


----------



## MNblockhead

Hussar said:


> How would anonymous reporting work at a con or store though?  You send an email to someone about someone else's behavior?  But, then, the email can be tracked back to you.  I had thought that anonymous meant that while the con organizers would know who you are, because you talked to them to make the complaint, you privacy would be respected and no one else would be told.
> 
> I'm not sure how that would actually work in practice to have harassment complaints be totally anonymous.




Companies deal with this all the time and there are products and services to support this, such as compliance hotlines.  These are, however, generally expensive and are probably beyond what a game store or convention will be willing or able to spend. Still it isn't that difficult to create a web form that would allow anonymous complaints.


----------



## Umbran

Calithorne said:


> So really, any man can be banned from a con on the word of any woman, and there will be no need of proof.




In theory.  But, in theory, a meteor could fall from the sky and strike you dead while you sleep.  In reality, no, that doesn't happen with any frequency.

I note that upthread I asked if anyone wanted to know what happened when I did make a report.  Did I miss you asking me to please reveal what the process was like?  Because, without information, you're just speculating and making it sound like the worst possible way is a likely scenario, reinforcing belief in a narrative that has no factual basis.

In reality, rare indeed is the ban based on a single report from one individual.  Thankfully, jerks are rarely jerks for just one instant - they tend to carry their jerkitude with them all day long, and commit multiple offences.  When I made a report, it was combined with four other reports about issues with the same individual that day.  With five separate reports spanning much of the day, from people who didn't know each other, the Convention felt it had sufficient cause to disinvite the individual from future events.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> Certainly con organizers have a right to do as they please, I never said otherwise.
> 
> On the other hand, gamers are free to avoid cons that set themselves up as the Inquisition of the Anti-Sex League.




Well, there are a lot of women who have avoided cons because they don't want to be mashed on by drunken louts and guys who think they're Mr Suave, stared at by awkward oglers, be inappropriately touched by Mr. Handsy because they dared to show a bit of cleavage when dressed as Power Girl, or raped because they got drunk at the suite party. So there you go.


----------



## Calithorne

Well, I'm concerned with due process because, even with due process, the justice system puts a lot of innocent people in prison.  If it's your word against a police officer, the judge or jury will believe the police officer.  And sometimes, a lot more than you think, police officers will lie to put a defendant behind bars.

When you tell me women rarely lie about harassment, it sends chills up my spine because that's creating a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality that is against everything America stands for.

Your argument that it would take multiple reports from multiple people who don't know each other makes sense to me, however, because the more reports there are, the less chance of error.


----------



## Calithorne

billd91 said:


> Well, there are a lot of women who have avoided cons because they don't want to be mashed on by drunken louts and guys who think they're Mr Suave, stared at by awkward oglers, be inappropriately touched by Mr. Handsy because they dared to show a bit of cleavage when dressed as Power Girl, or raped because they got drunk at the suite party. So there you go.




I understand there's a problem.  However, I noticed that you lumped in awkward oglers with rapists.  If you can't see the difference between these behaviors, one which is legal, and one which isn't, then there's a problem.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> I understand there's a problem.  However, I noticed that you lumped in awkward oglers with rapists.  If you can't see the difference between these behaviors, one which is legal, and one which isn't, then there's a problem.




If you can't see there's a problem with being an awkward ogler, I'm not the one with the problem here. *BOTH* are the kinds of things that men to do women that make environments difficult for them to enjoy, difficult for them to enjoy with the same equality of access and comfort. Yeah, one of them's a lot worse than the other. *BOTH* should be put under control by us - the men with the power to control ourselves rather than make excuses for bad behavior, legal or not.


----------



## Hussar

Calithorne said:


> I haven't read the entire thread because it is now more than 900 posts long, so I guess I missed the part where it is explained what convention hosts are supposed to do about guests who don't meet the standards of a harassment policy.
> 
> Will all accusations, whether or not proved, be acted on?




Yes.  As they should be.  To the reasonable extent that they should be.



> Or will there be a hearing held somewhere where both parties may present their side of the story, and a neutral arbitrator will make a decision?




Absolutely not.  Do you expect the same thing in a bar?  Hotel?  Any other venue?  Why would you expect it here?  When the bouncer asks you to leave, for whatever reason, are you insisting on a neutral arbiter?



> Will the parties be permitted to hire legal counsel at these proceedings?




Why?  These "proceedings" are not, in any way, legally binding.


> What will be the consequences if a person is found guilty of harrassment?




"Found guilty" is a legal issue and has no place in this discussion.  Sorry, we've been over this.


----------



## Hussar

MNblockhead said:


> Companies deal with this all the time and there are products and services to support this, such as compliance hotlines.  These are, however, generally expensive and are probably beyond what a game store or convention will be willing or able to spend. Still it isn't that difficult to create a web form that would allow anonymous complaints.




I gotta admit I'm not hugely comfortable with this.  I worry that a system like this is just an easy vehicle to harass someone with.  As soon as you make it completely anonymous, it's pretty easy to start being a douche bag and make spurious complaints.  I get the idea, but, I'm not sure how practical it would be in use.  I do think that it's not a hugely onerous responsibility to place on the person being harassed that they have to go to the staff and make a complaint.

But, I'll admit, I'm not sure either way.


----------



## Hussar

Calithorne said:


> Well, I'm concerned with due process /snip




And if we were in any way discussing legal issues (for the umpteenth time) you'd have a point.  

But we're not.  Trying to apply legal standards to this is simply missing the point entirely.


----------



## Calithorne

Well, if people are writing news articles about men based on accusations, and destroying their lives and careers, then there should at least be due process.

If it's only about getting thrown out of a con, then the stakes are much lower.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> Well, if people are writing news articles about men based on accusations, and destroying their lives and careers, then there should at least be due process.
> 
> If it's only about getting thrown out of a con, then the stakes are much lower.




You mean like the due process women are subject to when, if they make allegations, the police, the courts, the media, and public start implying they're sluts, ask what they were wearing, question why they were out alone, ask if they were leading their harasser on, or suggest they're making false accusations?


----------



## Calithorne

In a perfect world none of these problems between men and women would ever happen.

In a perfect world there would be no sex, no difference between men and women, we would all wear grey suits, and babies would be created in medical laboratories and raised by state-run nurseries.

And that's where this is going.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> In a perfect world none of these problems between men and women would ever happen.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no sex, no difference between men and women, we would all wear grey suits, and babies would be created in medical laboratories and raised by state-run nurseries.
> 
> And that's where this is going.




No, in a perfect world, anybody could let their hair down, relax, dress in any manner they choose, get a drink at the convention hotel bar, get wasted in a suite party... and not be  judged, sexually harassed, discriminated against, or become the victim of a sex crime.


----------



## Hussar

Calithorne said:


> Well, if people are writing news articles about men based on accusations, and destroying their lives and careers, then there should at least be due process.
> 
> If it's only about getting thrown out of a con, then the stakes are much lower.




Umm, well, at what point can we make a news article?  When the accusations are made or after they've been convicted?  What about issues that aren't legal in nature or where no actual charges have been laid?  Can we report those?  

Good grief, reread the first pages of this thread.  All of this has been answered a hundred times already and I'm frankly sick of the repetition.


----------



## Calithorne

billd91 said:


> No, in a perfect world, anybody could let their hair down, relax, dress in any manner they choose, get a drink at the convention hotel bar, get wasted in a suite party... and not be  judged, sexually harassed, discriminated against, or become the victim of a sex crime.




You will have to abolish the sex instinct in all men to accomplish it.


----------



## Calithorne

The agenda behind all this is to transform the world into a society without normal sex between men and women.  George Orwell predicted this in 1984.


----------



## cmad1977

Calithorne said:


> In a perfect world none of these problems between men and women would ever happen.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no sex, no difference between men and women, we would all wear grey suits, and babies would be created in medical laboratories and raised by state-run nurseries.
> 
> And that's where this is going.




Cracking down on harassment at cons leads to A Brave New World? 

Heck of an argument Cotton.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> You will have to abolish the sex instinct in all men to accomplish it.




Oh, those poor men and their inability to stop victimizing women. Whatever will they do?

That's MRA bull  right there - that men have to extinguish the sex instinct to behave like decent human beings to women.


----------



## Calithorne

cmad1977 said:


> Cracking down on harassment at cons leads to A Brave New World?
> 
> Heck of an argument Cotton.




It's part of a much bigger conspiracy to transform our world, and if you don't see it, you're probably part of it.


----------



## Calithorne

billd91 said:


> Oh, those poor men and their inability to stop victimizing women. Whatever will they do?
> 
> That's MRA bull  right there - that men have to extinguish the sex instinct to behave like decent human beings to women.




I heard on the news that a professor is now in trouble for yelling "Lengerie Department" at an elevator, and a woman filed a complaint against him.

Carts are taking men to the guillotine over trifles.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> The agenda behind all this is to transform the world into a society without normal sex between men and women.  George Orwell predicted this in 1984.




Gee, if you mean the goal is to transform the world into a society in which men don't do things to women without their consent... then you're right on target. But the implication that harassing or raping women is a world of normal sexual relations - that's pretty effed up. And that's on you.


----------



## Sunseeker

Hussar said:


> Umm, well, at what point can we make a news article?  When the accusations are made or after they've been convicted?  What about issues that aren't legal in nature or where no actual charges have been laid?  Can we report those?
> 
> Good grief, reread the first pages of this thread.  All of this has been answered a hundred times already and I'm frankly sick of the repetition.




He's aware.  He's not repeating it out of ignorance.

He's repeating it to derail the conversation.

These types do it all over the internet, every day.  They're _trained_ how to, as someone said before, "walk right up to the line" in an effort to get the other side to break the rules so that they can then go and report that person, or look more justified, or both.  

It's trolling.  Stop feeding him.


----------



## Calithorne

Rape is illegal and should be punished by a long prison sentence.

Ogling a woman is rude behavior, but there is no way to eliminate it without creating a Stalinist police state.


----------



## Calithorne

This is fueled by a leftist agenda to destroy the power of men in our society, and replace them with powerless castrati who have no role in society as husbands and fathers.  George Orwell predicted this in 1984, I invite you to read the book to understand where all this is going.


----------



## eayres33

Afrodyte said:


> How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?




My suggestion would be to make it personal. Yes have it posted as you walk in the door and at many different points in the venue but hire a few more people, (charge $5 a person more to do this if you have to) to explain to everyone as they register what the policy is, and more importantly why the convention thinks it is important. 

Make it personal; have a person sitting their letting every convention attendee know that you are expected to treat everyone there with equal respect and what to do if someone isn’t treating you with respect. 

There are a lot of questions on this thread I don’t have good answers too, but the one thing I do know from working several decades in customer service is a billboard and a poster while nice are nothing compared with another human being asking you face to face to respect everyone in the hall.


----------



## Elf Witch

Advilaar said:


> That is the reason you change the environment. It is much simpler than
> 
> You get rid of the room parties, the booze, and have a sensible dress code you eliminate the environment which breeds the behavior you do not want. If someone actually DOES do something, you intervene like you would anyone doing anything at your event. You ask them nicely to leave. If they do not leave, you have security escort them out. If it is especially egregious, you permaban him and any company he may represent.
> 
> Realize that, unfortunately, whenever you have drunk, single people of both genders it also attracts men that look for prey. If they do not get it there, they go elsewhere. Even communities with sex as a theme, like BDSM or poly communities have issues with higher numbers of predators because they at least seem like places a predator would enjoy.
> 
> By eliminating the proper hunting grounds, the predators must seek better hunting grounds. Let those people deal with it. Much easier than massive social engineering projects (with some very Orwellian things coming from the fringes)
> 
> Win-Win. Games get played, no ideologies, no hooking up, no distraction, just games!




You are right why don't you have women dress in burkas that will just solve everything.


----------



## Sunseeker

eayres33 said:


> My suggestion would be to make it personal. Yes have it posted as you walk in the door and at many different points in the venue but hire a few more people, (charge $5 a person more to do this if you have to) to explain to everyone as they register what the policy is, and more importantly why the convention thinks it is important.
> 
> Make it personal; have a person sitting their letting every convention attendee know that you are expected to treat everyone there with equal respect and what to do if someone isn’t treating you with respect.
> 
> There are a lot of questions on this thread I don’t have good answers too, but the one thing I do know from working several decades in customer service is a billboard and a poster while nice are nothing compared with another human being asking you face to face to respect everyone in the hall.




Speaking of making it personal, you could attach it to those "badges" that people get from cons.  Granted you usually have to pay extra for that, but you could probably expand it to everyone for little cost.  Decorative con-related image on the front and the code of conduct on the back.  That way also people would have it handy if they had questions or saw something and weren't sure if it was covered.  If there's too much to put on the back of the badge, you could put the biggest points on it and use a QR Code to direct people to the complete list.


----------



## eayres33

shidaku said:


> Speaking of making it personal, you could attach it to those "badges" that people get from cons.  Granted you usually have to pay extra for that, but you could probably expand it to everyone for little cost.  Decorative con-related image on the front and the code of conduct on the back.  That way also people would have it handy if they had questions or saw something and weren't sure if it was covered.  If there's too much to put on the back of the badge, you could put the biggest points on it and use a QR Code to direct people to the complete list.




The QR code is a good idea. One of my biggest issues with policies with bad behaviors, or inappropriate comments is they don't often give examples of what those could be. I would expect most people out of college or a few years out of highschool to have a good idea of what acceptable behaviors are but with working with a lot of younger adults from all over the country I don't think they have a good understanding of what is acceptable. I also believe this is mostly a lack of education and ignorance not a greater moral failing. While we can't change what has happened in the past we can work to show what is acceptable in the present and future.


----------



## eayres33

Calithorne said:


> This is fueled by a leftist agenda to destroy the power of men in our society, and replace them with powerless castrati who have no role in society as husbands and fathers.  George Orwell predicted this in 1984, I invite you to read the book to understand where all this is going.




I know this post seems to be a big flashing don’t feed the bears/trolls sign but even with his several faults I love Animal Farm and 1984.

Orwell predicted replacing the power of men and replacing them with a powerless castrati in 1984, this is what you are actually claiming?

Three points/questions?

1.    What does this have to do with anything in this thread?

2.    I’ve never heard castrati before but I’m pretty sure what it means and I’m not going to waste time googling it. You think that’s a good subject to bring up in this thread. A thread that is really about men taking some responsibility and for the first time in well pretty much ever not treating women like they were there property to do with as they please, and more importantly asking women and men how do we make conventions safer for women going forward?


3.    Off topic I know but 1984 was about the horrors of totalitarianism, how an authoritarian government could strip personal rights and freedoms from its citizens, and the dangers of propaganda, nothing about stealing power from men, I mean really I'm no angel and I did and said things in my youth I am sorry for but really 1984 now a book about empowering men. Next I'll learn that Dr. Strangelove is actually about preserving our precious bodily fluids and not satire.


----------



## Calithorne

You're wrong if you think I'm in favor of sexual harrassment.  In my earlier threads I made it clear that the cause of the problems we have as a society is that parents aren't teaching their sons how to properly treat women, schools aren't teaching morals at all, and Hollywood is portraying men as boors and this is shown as funny and something to be admired in men.

But this modern attempt to enforce a code of conduct does not come from a desire to really solve the problem, it comes from a desire to radically transform our society to destroy the role of men in society as leaders, fathers, and husbands.

Look at what they did to the Boy Scouts if you don't believe me.  Now they will have girls among the boys, and the boys will no longer have a place for themselves to grow into men.  Note that the Girl Scouts will continue to be all girls, since girls are still allowed a place for themselves.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

doctorhook said:


> I just realized exactly why I love ENWorld's "no politics" rule (and the high quality moderation team to enforce it): I find myself losing respect for certain commenters when they reveal political biases.
> 
> Anyway, this is obviously a complex problem that needs some nuance, but if we're helping fellow gamers avoid being harassed or assaulted, then I'm inclined to think things are moving in a positive direction.




I’m several days late to this conversation, but yeah, this. I once argued against the renewal of the ban on political discussion, but I see the sense in it now. 

I’m here to talk games and the game industry. I get plenty of the other stuff elsewhere.


----------



## Particle_Man

Calithorne said:


> It's part of a much bigger conspiracy to transform our world, and if you don't see it, you're probably part of it.




There is an attempt to transform the world, starting with our tiny part of it, to one where women are safer than they are now. It is not a conspiracy though. It is open and pretty much grassroots.  Also, when you finally do read this thread be sure to read the part where SPF, the man accused in the OP article, begs people not to defend his actions or talk about legal definitions of guilt. You are in no way one of the people he wants defending him.

Edit: partially scooped by billd91. Your xp, sir.


----------



## Elf Witch

Calithorne said:


> So really, any man can be banned from a con on the word of any woman, and there will be no need of proof.




As someone who has been on concommittes I can answer this one for you and the answer is no. For crying out loud stop worrying about your fragile male self. How every con I have been a part of handles harassment is we investigate if it comes down to he says she says we ask them to stay away from each other if they have no other proof but we try and keep an eye on the situation. A lot of people do have proof though we get complaints from more than one person , staff sees the behavior, we have it on security footage like the jerk who was groping cosplayers in the elevator and didn't see to notice the camera the hotel had in there.


----------



## eayres33

Calithorne said:


> You're wrong if you think I'm in favor of sexual harrassment.  In my earlier threads I made it clear that the cause of the problems we have as a society is that parents aren't teaching their sons how to properly treat women, schools aren't teaching morals at all, and Hollywood is portraying men as boors and this is shown as funny and something to be admired in men.
> 
> But this modern attempt to enforce a code of conduct does not come from a desire to really solve the problem, it comes from a desire to radically transform our society to destroy the role of men in society as leaders, fathers, and husbands.
> 
> Look at what they did to the Boy Scouts if you don't believe me.  Now they will have girls among the boys, and the boys will no longer have a place for themselves to grow into men.  Note that the Girl Scouts will continue to be all girls, since girls are still allowed a place for themselves.




Yes the Scouts will begin letting girls in, which is a good thing in my opinion, because they will have to interact with each other and learn to set boundaries at an earlier age.  As for the scouts being inclusive and the girl scouts being exclusive I understand how you can see that as a problem. Whenever I see that I think well that isn’t fair, because on the surface it’s not.

I then take a step back in a world where men and women are treated equally where our opinions are all seen as equal and we have equal oppurnity having something for everyone and something just for girls is wrong. Sadly we do not live in that world. The world we live in is still slanted heavily towards men, towards white men, towards straight cis white men to be the most accurate. We need to acknowledge that and allow the humans that have always been the “others” to us have their spaces, their opportunities and their growth that has always just been granted to us.

I’ll stress that if your kids are more influenced by Hollywood then their parents, that is a problem, but to think it is the parent’s problem and not a greater failing based on gender, race, sexuality, or economic class I don’t know what to say.

But I do know this everyone should feel welcome at a convention, and if they don’t they should report it and it should be acted upon. This doesn’t mean if someone thinks someone looked at them wrong the “looker” should be barred from all future conventions, but they should at least be talked to and told that they are making people uncomfortable and if it happens again they are gone. If they do worse than that well then they are gone then.


----------



## Particle_Man

Btw I think it would be good to make sure that many women are among the people that harassment can be reported to. Some harassees might have difficulty making the report to a man, due, among other things, to a perceived fear of being disbelieved.


----------



## Elf Witch

Calithorne said:


> In a perfect world none of these problems between men and women would ever happen.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no sex, no difference between men and women, we would all wear grey suits, and babies would be created in medical laboratories and raised by state-run nurseries.
> 
> And that's where this is going.




OH please that is where you think this is going? How about getting rid of rape culture and understanding bodily autonomy and consent. The idea that women can dress as a slave Leia and enjoy themselves at con because they find that fun and that does not mean that they are there to have sex with any guy who finds them hot and guys understand and this should be the new normal.  Sure guys can look and have private sexy thoughts that they keep to themselves they may take a picture even talk to her about her costume in her non creepy way.

Mo one wants to take sex out of human relationships because hey sex is fun. What we want to get rid of is rape, sexual harassment which is not fun.  Sure when cosplayers dress up they want attention but they don't want creepy attention news flash women are not walking vaginas and boobs and the way to get a woman to really talk to you is treat her like a human being. 

Do you know how tiresome it is for women to have fend off unwanted advances?  We fear them because we never know how men are going to take it, some men are cool about saying sorry not interested but I think most women have dealt with the angry man who goes from nice to angry to scary in a blink of an eye. I was at Trek con and was at the bar with friends this guy sent over a drink for me and asked if he could join us. We talked for awhile my friends left he seemed nice until he hit on me and I told him no that I was not interested in con sex  he got angry I gave him money for the drink he bought me because he brought up that up and when I got up to leave he grabbed my arm and  yanked my back down and told he was not finished talking to me. I was really scared that it was going to escalate to more violence. I was rescued by by a group of cosplaying Klingons.

That is what we so called feminazis are trying to get rid off. Not sex and flirting between consenting adults but the toxic rape culture where certain men think that they are owed sex by women.


----------



## Gradine

I'll reiterate that I think it's a great idea, especially for the larger cons that can probably afford it, to hire the services of a trained Title IX Coordinator/Investigator, both to help train staff and volunteers, craft policy and messaging, and help coordinate investigations and responses on-site. The smaller cons won't be able to afford that kind of service but with the bigger cons serving as models a lot of what could be gained from this will start to trickle down.

Also, re: feeding our most recent troll, but at what point after reading the word "castrati" did it still occur to anyone that this was a person arguing in good faith that deserved anyone's time, energy, and attention?


----------



## Elf Witch

Calithorne said:


> Rape is illegal and should be punished by a long prison sentence.
> 
> Ogling a woman is rude behavior, but there is no way to eliminate it without creating a Stalinist police state.






Calithorne said:


> I heard on the news that a professor is now in trouble for yelling "Lengerie Department" at an elevator, and a woman filed a complaint against him.
> 
> Carts are taking men to the guillotine over trifles.




So a woman goes to an event an a man follows her around stares at her ogling at her because that in your opinion is his right as man until it ruins her ability to enjoy the event that she paid money to attend so she should what leave?  Please tell me how that is right or just? Why can't he control himself and leave her alone? 

And actually the professor is actually not in trouble for that he found out that a complaint had been filed and he broke protocol and approached her with a condescending nasty email. He was then told to just apologize and he doubled down. You know she overreacted to his failed attempt at humor but he also acted like child too because adults usually when confronted that may have offended someone even if they didn't mean to usually take the high road an apologize.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Calithorne said:


> It's part of a much bigger conspiracy to transform our world, and if you don't see it, you're probably part of it.




And to think that 10 pages back or so some folks thought I was reading too much into Cali's comments about "absentee fathers" and "smacking kids upside the head" when I said it sounded like he was just defending the patriarchy.

Then there's _this_ doozy (with some emphasis added)...



Calithorne said:


> ....it comes from a desire to radically transform our society to *destroy the role of men in society as leaders*, fathers, and husbands.
> 
> 
> Look at what they did to the Boy Scouts if you don't believe me.  Now they will have girls among the boys, and the boys will no longer have a place for themselves to grow into men.  Note that the Girl Scouts will continue to be all girls, since girls are still allowed a place for themselves.




I stand vindicated.


----------



## billd91

Calithorne said:


> Look at what they did to the Boy Scouts if you don't believe me.  Now they will have girls among the boys, and the boys will no longer have a place for themselves to grow into men.  Note that the Girl Scouts will continue to be all girls, since girls are still allowed a place for themselves.




Oh, hey, look. These are completely separate organizations that have the full power to do whatever they want to do without affecting the other one.
You also completely overlook that the BSA has had coed divisions since 1969.


----------



## Elf Witch

Calithorne said:


> Rape is illegal and should be punished by a long prison sentence.
> 
> Ogling a woman is rude behavior, but there is no way to eliminate it without creating a Stalinist police state.






Calithorne said:


> You're wrong if you think I'm in favor of sexual harrassment.  In my earlier threads I made it clear that the cause of the problems we have as a society is that parents aren't teaching their sons how to properly treat women, schools aren't teaching morals at all, and Hollywood is portraying men as boors and this is shown as funny and something to be admired in men.
> 
> But this modern attempt to enforce a code of conduct does not come from a desire to really solve the problem, it comes from a desire to radically transform our society to destroy the role of men in society as leaders, fathers, and husbands.
> 
> Look at what they did to the Boy Scouts if you don't believe me.  Now they will have girls among the boys, and the boys will no longer have a place for themselves to grow into men.  Note that the Girl Scouts will continue to be all girls, since girls are still allowed a place for themselves.




You mean fathers like the one who wants his rapist son to have a lighter sentence because it is ruining his life after all he was only getting a little action? Or fathers who hold a double standard and high five their sons when they get action but expected their daughters to be virgins?  

They Boy Scouts that are admitting girls will not have coed troops. The reason girls want to join the boy scouts and have been joining them for quite awhile is that they have a better camping and sports program than the girl scouts.  It is the same reasons girls fight to be a part of men sports teams because they are better funded. 

And no it is not to destroy men as fathers what a load of BS and are you actually going to say that women can't be leaders?


----------



## Sadras

@_*Calithorne*_ the issue we are currently addressing is harassment at Cons which has nothing to do with Orwell, Boy/Girls Scouts and an underlying agenda. We have several prominent figures in our community that have been accused and have self-admitted to wrong doing - what about all the non-prominent figures who are harassing who we don't hear about? These are the community's problems.

Both Umbran and Elf Witch (and maybe some others, I haven't read everything) have told you there is due process when someone is accused of sexual harassment at a Con, people do not get thrown out willy-nilly. If you are seriously concerned about false accusations and the like don't you think it is more constructive to discuss/analyse this process with them than focusing on a political agenda which is unrelated?


----------



## Riley37

Sadras said:


> Again inferring.
> 
> Alarmist much?




If there was ever a time when such inferences were alarmist... and I'm not saying there's been such a time, not in my life... then it ended on April 23, 2018, in Toronto, about an hour after Alek Minassian posted "All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

Ever since then, it's reasonable caution. 

You sound like someone who's never lost a friend or loved one to terrorist violence, and who dismisses the concerns of those who have. I guess you didn't lose any friends, in Toronto, did you? Nor any at Isla Vista, four years ago?

One of my distant relatives died, in one of the following: the Great Famine, the Third Reich, the Trail of Tears, the Middle Passage. Can you guess which one? Am I wrong to assess threats, on a more "alarmist" basis than you do?


----------



## Sadras

Riley37 said:


> Am I wrong to assess threats, on a more "alarmist" basis than you do?




You can assess them any which way you choose, it doesn't prohibit me from commenting on it though. 

The most interesting thing about this post is that you cite a single incel attack for your alarmist tendency. I would imagine a country that has had multiple attacks on it by terrorists might find itself with a president raising policy due to such alarms being raised and thus would be supported by you (or at least the policy thereof). Would said president be wrong to assess threats on a more alarmist basis than you do?

EDIT: Have been corrected, it was two incel attacks. Was not familiar with the earlier incident in 2014.
Furthermore, my discussion with the previous poster was not about violence/harassment on women, disputing any facts...et al.


----------



## Riley37

MNblockhead said:


> Yeah, I don't get this defeatist attitude. I can understand feeling frustrated with the pace of progress but to deny the possibility of progress smacks of mental illness. Or posturing.




It's posturing. I have chronic severe depression (mitigated with treatment, but still unpleasant). Optimism does not come easily to me. But I don't deny the possibility of progress.

Some days, if I asserted that life is anything but meaningless suffering, I would be bluffing, with a negative modifier to my Bluff roll.  Even on those days, I can recognize that Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor did something worthwhile. Denying progress goes WAY past distortion, well into delusion. There are people in mental hospitals, in the locked ward, who can still recognize that progress is reality.

So yeah. It's posturing.

Tangent, but relevant to other forms of harassment: Mental illness *overlaps* with bad character and misbehavior, especially for psychopaths, narcissists, etc.; but even so, I would rather be categorized, morally, with my fellow depressive Robin Williams, or with Wil Wheaton for that matter, than stand with the people who, with clear mind, no distortion, no delusion, gave the go-ahead for the Trail of Tears, the Great Famine, the Holocaust, and the Middle Passage. Call me crazy, and yes I am; call me evil, and I'll do my best to prove you wrong.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> Somewhere ... a breakroom, a bathroom, a hallway .... there will be a bunch of posters. On those posters will be all sorts of useful information about OSHA, and the FLSA, and HIPAA, and FMLA, and all sorts of other rights!
> 
> I would almost guarantee that you're not familiar with them.




You would lose that bet.

On day 1 of a new job, I go find those posters, and if I wanna double-check where the boundary falls, then I go back to those posters. I don't require a LOT of "reasonable accommodation". I can "pass" for neurotypical so well that my co-workers generally never know I have a mental health diagnosis. If a supervisor pushes me to take more shifts, than i can manage without risking a breakdown, then I go to those posters, (go directly, do not pass GO), and I weigh my response accordingly. (The last time a supervisor asked me if I had any requests, my request was "a swastika-free work environment", because they hadn't yet dealt properly with swastika graffiti, and I wanted to nudge that process along.)

Do women, people of color, people "out" as LGBTQIA+, documented immigrants, people with unpopular religions, etc., make a beeline for those posters as routinely as I do?

"Check your privilege" is a phrase which gets tossed around casually. Instead I'll ask: how confident are you, that your life experience, is also everyone else's life experience? Perhaps you have no particular reason to read those posters; does that mean, therefore, *no one* reads them?


----------



## Riley37

Calithorne said:


> Certainly con organizers have a right to do as they please, I never said otherwise.
> 
> On the other hand, gamers are free to avoid cons that set themselves up as the Inquisition of the Anti-Sex League.




If a harassment-deterrence policy keeps you from attending GenCon, then that's one small victory for GenCon.

As a man who has no problem signing agreement to such a policy, following it in both letter and spirit, and stepping up when anyone pushes the boundaries: I will offer what consolation I can, to any woman who laments "Calithorne didn't ask me for my phone number! He didn't admire my sexy cosplay! He isn't even here! The Anti-Consent-Culture Inquisition deterred him from attending!"

I will offer a reassuring "there, there, it's gonna be okay - hey, can I introduce you to some of my friends, who are about your age, who dance fairly well, and who might distract you from your sorrows?" If, the next day, her cosplay make-up is somewhat smudged, then I'll just hope she's enjoying the con, without you, and without all your fellow members of "Team BWBB" (Boys Will Be Boys). 

If twice as many women attend Gencon on the year you stop attending, and then three times as many women, when you continue to stay away... yeah, I'm fine with that outcome. And no, that's not limited to cis het women in sexy cosplay. Women of all varieties increase the range of perspectives which people bring to player characters and NPCs, and that's valuable; I prefer a more realistic mix in TRPG, rather than the status quo's blatantly unrealistic level of homogeneity.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Sadras said:


> You can assess them any which way you choose, it doesn't prohibit me from commenting on it though.
> 
> 
> The most interesting thing about this post is that you cite a single incel attack for your alarmist tendency. I would imagine a country that has had multiple attacks on it by terrorists might find itself with a president raising policy due to such alarms being raised and thus would be supported by you (or at least the policy thereof). Would the president be wrong to assess threats on a more alarmist basis than you do?




Actually she cited the TWO well known incel attacks. What we haven't listed ad nauseum- the shooting a month or so ago at a school in NJ, the one they claim was stopped by a security guard with a gun? No. He wasn't he killed HIMSELF AFTER he killed the person he came there to kill, a girl who had broke up with him. I could list 4000 of those cases a year btw, that is how many deaths in the country at least a year due to domestic violence, most of them women. A guy angry because a woman exercised her right to say no, to a relationship or anything else.
I won't once again cite rape and assault stats for the USA. They have been gone over and over here, and they tend to derail the conversation.
This thread has been posting over a week, and whenever it gets to something like respectful exchange of ideas of what CAN be done, up pop these guys who are more worried about being thrown out of a Con, so worried they indicate they would be traumatized should it happen, and it is totally unfair they should be asked to look at their own behavior to prevent it from happening.
You know, expecting you guys to watch yourselves the same way any woman is expected to do? 
You fear being thrown out of a Con, we fear being murdered, raped or assaulted because some guy doesn't think our saying NO is "fair".


----------



## Sadras

Jeanneliza said:


> This thread has been posting over a week, and whenever it gets to something like respectful exchange of ideas of what CAN be done, up pop *these guys* who are more worried about being thrown out of a Con, so worried they indicate they would be traumatized should it happen, and it is totally unfair they should be asked to look at their own behavior to prevent it from happening.
> 
> You know, expecting *you guys* to watch yourselves the same way any woman is expected to do?
> 
> *You* fear being thrown out of a Con, we fear being murdered, raped or assaulted because some guy doesn't think our saying NO is "fair".




*You* have the wrong person. [MENTION=6874058]Calithorne[/MENTION] was the one worried about being thrown out, not me.


----------



## Jeanneliza

eayres33 said:


> I know this post seems to be a big flashing don’t feed the bears/trolls sign but even with his several faults I love Animal Farm and 1984.
> 
> Orwell predicted replacing the power of men and replacing them with a powerless castrati in 1984, this is what you are actually claiming?
> 
> Three points/questions?
> 
> 1.    What does this have to do with anything in this thread?
> 
> 2.    I’ve never heard castrati before but I’m pretty sure what it means and I’m not going to waste time googling it. You think that’s a good subject to bring up in this thread. A thread that is really about men taking some responsibility and for the first time in well pretty much ever not treating women like they were there property to do with as they please, and more importantly asking women and men how do we make conventions safer for women going forward?
> 
> 
> 3.    Off topic I know but 1984 was about the horrors of totalitarianism, how an authoritarian government could strip personal rights and freedoms from its citizens, and the dangers of propaganda, nothing about stealing power from men, I mean really I'm no angel and I did and said things in my youth I am sorry for but really 1984 now a book about empowering men. Next I'll learn that Dr. Strangelove is actually about preserving our precious bodily fluids and not satire.




You know I caught that, and I have heard of the castrati. The Vienna Boys Choir was originally made up of castrati, boys castrated to prevent their voices from changing, not to prevent rape. And it was done by the CATHOLIC CHURCH the bastion of male domination. If he was upset over the castrati he should be angry with men.


----------



## Morrus

Calithorne said:


> This is fueled by a leftist agenda to destroy the power of men in our society, and replace them with powerless castrati who have no role in society as husbands and fathers.  George Orwell predicted this in 1984, I invite you to read the book to understand where all this is going.




Boy, did you pick the wrong website to rant about "leftist agendas". Don't post in this thread again, please.


----------



## Advilaar

Elf Witch said:


> You are right why don't you have women dress in burkas that will just solve everything.




No. Be careful with implying or assuming. It may earn points with some, but makes you appear like a zealot.

The conventions are a trade convention. A vacation destination as well.

If there are huge public outcries and bad media about harassment (whether this is ubiquitous or overblown - matters not), they will shut down the drinking and room parties. They will also shut down the cosplay - at least the very racy outfits. While they do care somewhat about social justice stuff, they also do not want the headache of lawsuits, drunks, enforcement. 

This has nothing to do with equality, diversity, radical feminism, sexual predators, NLP stupidity, Red Pill, MGTOW, gamergate, MeToo, or any of the internet religions out there. And, yes, these things ARE religions. Do not believe me? Try to disagree even slightly with one of those groups - even rationally. Watch the bans and dog piles.

They DO care about
- The money
- The vendors and products that buy booths to bring the money
- Avoiding lawsuits and not tinkling off the hotel or other stakeholders.
- People having fun and returning.

Anything that interferes with this, they will squish.

Fortunately, they are going to do what they have been doing. Put in BIG ALL CAPS that no means no along with the other stuff like no stealing, no destroying the facility, etc. Any one doing those things that gets caught gets tossed out. AND - if you see the article, if it is bad enough you get your occupation crushed. Seems like the system is working. 

Other than shutting high risk events down that are a headache to them anyways, I am not sure *what else MORE* people really want these organizations to do. Forms in triplicate? Ban all hetero dudes? (Don't laugh. There are a very few who would be okay with that even though it would be a death knell for any existing convention) FBI fingerprint checks to run a game?

I would sincerely hope people are not bringing tin foil hat into this or absolute statements. This includes stuff like "all men are harassers" to stuff like "You will be falsely accused and be made homeless because you were rejected" and other misanthropic nonsense. There will always be harassers, there will always be people who lie vindictively. But if you center your life around this, you are in for a very unhappy life. I prefer to avoid those people.

I have stated my position, and this article is on second page now. I am going to go on towards other things other than media clickbait. Like converting some 2e Gamma World to 5e. Something geeky. Wasn't that supposed to be the thing?


----------



## Morrus

Rygar said:


> Probably didn't help when left wing activists started deriding posters if they didn't fall in line, and the mods (predictably) didn't censor any of them.  But post an acronym used commonly for left wing activists and they'll ban you in less than a page...




You know better than to challenge moderation in-thread. Don't post in this thread again, please.


----------



## S'mon

Re the OP, and I do take eg Elf Witch's points seriously...

One thing I noticed about the Gencon policy is that it does not give a definition of harassment. Legal definitions typically involve repeated inappropriate behaviour, so following someone around oggling them could well count - and if asked to desist certainly would count IMO. An undesired sexual comment usually does not meet legal definitions of harassment.

*Would it be beneficial for Convention policies to give at least an indicative idea of what constitutes harassment?* 

There are some behaviours that the perpetrator clearly knows are not welcome or appropriate, and these perpetrators are not going to be deterred by any code. But there is a lot of marginal activity too (such as some of what SPF is accused of) that may be appropriate in some contexts but not in others. And social mores change too, behaviour typical in 1978 may be seen as reprehensible in 2018. 

Would an indicative list of behaviour considered inappropriate be helpful to deter the marginal cases? On the evidence given, I don't believe SPF considered his behaviour to amount to harassment, and if you want it stopped then giving examples of undesired behaviour could be helpful and perhaps create greater certainty.


----------



## S'mon

eayres33 said:


> My suggestion would be to make it personal. Yes have it posted as you walk in the door and at many different points in the venue but hire a few more people, (charge $5 a person more to do this if you have to) to explain to everyone as they register what the policy is, and more importantly why the convention thinks it is important.
> 
> Make it personal; have a person sitting their letting every convention attendee know that you are expected to treat everyone there with equal respect and what to do if someone isn’t treating you with respect.
> 
> There are a lot of questions on this thread I don’t have good answers too, but the one thing I do know from working several decades in customer service is a billboard and a poster while nice are nothing compared with another human being asking you face to face to respect everyone in the hall.




This fits my experience - telling people to treat each other with *mutual respect * works well, and is a fairly easy metric to apply in evaluating if there's been a breach. It's a lot like the Kantian injunction to treat each other as ends not means. I would support its inclusion in a behaviour code.


----------



## Riley37

Elfcrusher said:


> And to think that 10 pages back or so some folks thought I was reading too much into Cali's comments about "absentee fathers" and "smacking kids upside the head" when I said it sounded like he was just defending the patriarchy.




I hereby nominate you for the Ian Malcolm Award for Accurate Alarmism. Sometimes being right is cold consolation.

Sadras will *still* call you an alarmist.

I mentioned a distant relative, who was executed by the Third Reich; Sadras apparently thinks that he, too, was alarmist; that the historical event in which he died, doesn't count as a reason to *actively* practice "never forget, never again".

If he *had* been an alarmist, maybe he would have lived longer; and what happened to his wife, after his death, might not have happened. I don't think even Sadras would make fun of her fate... but there's a guy posting fast and furious, who might go there.


----------



## Sadras

S'mon said:


> Re the OP, and I do take eg Elf Witch's points seriously...
> 
> One thing I noticed about the Gencon policy is that it does not give a definition of harassment. Legal definitions typically involve repeated inappropriate behaviour, so following someone around oggling them could well count - and if asked to desist certainly would count IMO. An undesired sexual comment usually does not meet legal definitions of harassment.
> 
> *Would it be beneficial for Convention policies to give at least an indicative idea of what constitutes harassment?*
> 
> There are some behaviours that the perpetrator clearly knows are not welcome or appropriate, and these perpetrators are not going to be deterred by any code. But there is a lot of marginal activity too (such as some of what SPF is accused of) that may be appropriate in some contexts but not in others. And social mores change too, behaviour typical in 1978 may be seen as reprehensible in 2018.
> 
> Would an indicative list of behaviour considered inappropriate be helpful to deter the marginal cases? On the evidence given, I don't believe SPF considered his behaviour to amount to harassment, and if you want it stopped then giving examples of undesired behaviour could be helpful and perhaps create greater certainty.




I honestly find this baffling that we need examples of what constitutes harassment.
Showing naked pics of yourself to the opposite sex when there is no indication of this being welcome; or 
Repeatedly making a woman feel uncomfortable while you sexualise her by ogling at her even after being asked to stop. I do not believe SPF didn't know, in that moment, that what he was doing was just plain wrong.

Have men really forgotten how to flirt without the risk of making women feel uncomfortable or worse? Are male gamers so bad at their Insight checks they do not know when to draw the line so they need some guide for do's and don'ts?


----------



## S'mon

Sadras said:


> Have men really forgotten how to flirt with the risk of making women feel uncomfortable or worse? Are male gamers so bad at their Insight checks they do not know when to draw the line so they need some guide for do's and don'ts?




Yes? I'm sure most convention goers are fine. But as I said, I think there may well be a minority of socially maladroit people for whom a clear policy would make a difference.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sadras

Riley37 said:


> Sadras will *still* call you an alarmist.




Sadras ended that conversation by XPing Elfcrusher. Sadras is unsure whether Riley37 noticed or even cared to notice.

Sadras hopes, for all concerned, that Riley37 notices and stops the rhetoric.


----------



## Guest 6801328

lowkey13 said:


> As I wrote before, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog.




My litter-mates do.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> How would anonymous reporting work at a con or store though?  You send an email to someone about someone else's behavior?  But, then, the email can be tracked back to you.  I had thought that anonymous meant that while the con organizers would know who you are, because you talked to them to make the complaint, you privacy would be respected and no one else would be told.
> 
> I'm not sure how that would actually work in practice to have harassment complaints be totally anonymous.




First, tip of the hat for good faith questions about proposed methods, and their practical implementations. Disagreements about *how* to discourage harassment, are at least a conversation among those of us who agree that we *want* to discourage harassment.

Your questions can, fortunately, be addressed! So easily that I am tempted to snark.

At the high end of the tech spectrum, there are ways to create messages anonymously. If the con has a website, then the website can have a form for sending feedback to con staff. That form can leave the "prove your real name" (or "provide your con registration number") elements as optional. If an exchange of messages is useful, then there are ways to allow "burner" usernames, user accounts just for that exchange, which have no verification other than the burner account's password. Further details are beyond the scope of this reply, but talk with your InfoTech people.

At the low end of the tech spectrum, there is a well-established, robust technology of "writing on paper with a pen", which does not have the routing, and thus the trace techniques, of email. Putting the paper into an envelope, and dropping that envelope into a CON SUGGESTIONS AND FEEDBACK box, is a viable delivery method.

On another hand, at either end of the tech spectrum, full anonymity reduces accountability, which in turn allows for bad actors to abuse a well-intentioned process. Con staff therefore should exercise good judgement in weighing any anonymous messages. Maybe just "hmm, someone anonymously accused Riley37 of making an inappropriately suggestive joke about glagtery, so let's keep an eye on him, and an ear open for any other mentions of him". Or "The note says that he made the joke at the Why Worldbuilding Is Bad workshop. I think Hussar was there, so let's ask Hussar if he remembers Riley37 saying anything in questionable taste." 

If someone on con staff found me, took me aside, and said "Hey Riley37, have you been joking about glagtery, and in what tone, and to whom?" then I would answer that question. I would not take the question as an Inquisition; I understand that con staff have a reasonable interest in learning more about what happened. I might even realize "oh, I told that joke to a person who enjoyed it, but there were others present, including a woman in sexy cosplay and her teenage daughter, and I should have saved that joke for elsewhere; I could be more cautious about possible misunderstandings."

Alternate scenario: "no, I've carefully avoided the topic of glagtery, why do you ask?" At this point, con staff could theorize that I'm denying misbehavior, AND theorize that someone with an axe to grind has made a false accusation, and hold both theories in the category of "unverified". If con staff know of someone with an axe to grind, then con staff can also keep a closer eye on that person, insofar as they have the resources to do so, on top of all their other tasks.

Anyways, you've made posts about ways that people routinely handle accusations about theft and so forth, and how those methods also apply to harassment accusations, so I doubt you need further explanation from me. You mentioned the scenario in which the complainer talks to one person on staff, who then describes the complaint to others as necessary, without specifying the complainer's name; and in general, I see that as the easier scenario to handle.

Here's to practical questions, towards shared goals, asked with the hope of useful answers. Here's to methods which result in cons which are safer, and feel safer, for more people, than the status quo.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Michael Silverbane

lowkey13 said:


> Quick aside, since I must have missed this in the past 900+ comments.
> 
> What is glagtery? Is that a placeholder for something else?




Yes. It is a nonsense word (used initially some posts back) to refer to some unspecified act, group, or device that might be used offensively, ostensibly to avoid getting caught up in the specifics of said act, group, or device.


----------



## Sadras

lowkey13 said:


> A lot of it is complicated, but IMO must of it boils down to entitlement. Most of the problems arise when a man feels entitled to the woman (her body, her attention, her romance, the ability to ogle her, etc.), and doesn't respect her boundaries and her communication, both verbal and non-verbal.




True, Elf Witch's experience at the Trek Con is telling. Who knows what that creep is up to now.


----------



## kenmarable

Gradine said:


> I'll reiterate that I think it's a great idea, especially for the larger cons that can probably afford it, to hire the services of a trained Title IX Coordinator/Investigator, both to help train staff and volunteers, craft policy and messaging, and help coordinate investigations and responses on-site. The smaller cons won't be able to afford that kind of service but with the bigger cons serving as models a lot of what could be gained from this will start to trickle down.
> 
> Also, re: feeding our most recent troll, but at what point after reading the word "castrati" did it still occur to anyone that this was a person arguing in good faith that deserved anyone's time, energy, and attention?




Well, at least we had a few pages of productive discussion before a troll managed to derail the entire conversation. Pretty textbook case of it and it worked as it always does. *sigh*

Anyway... signal boosting Gradine here - conventions need experts. Absolutely, 100%. *Properly*] handling this stuff is complicated, and just because a convention is good at running a convention does not mean they are good at handling harassment issues (and no, it's not common sense). That's also a very good point about the stores and smaller cons learning from the larger ones, however, part of that would be the larger conventions having to actually share their knowledge and procedures, and sadly, many are barely even posting a public policy let alone helping other conventions learn from their internal procedures.

So should the experts do more to get their information out there cheaper? Experts deserve to be paid for their expertise, but also tiny little LocalCon is probably asking volunteers to bring in their own tablecloths and sheets for vendor tables, and a Title IX or other expert just isn't remotely feasible. 

Should the industry as a whole instead be the ones to fund experts to produce guidelines, training, and such for all conventions and FLGS to adopt?


----------



## kenmarable

S'mon said:


> Re the OP, and I do take eg Elf Witch's points seriously...
> 
> One thing I noticed about the Gencon policy is that it does not give a definition of harassment. Legal definitions typically involve repeated inappropriate behaviour, so following someone around oggling them could well count - and if asked to desist certainly would count IMO. An undesired sexual comment usually does not meet legal definitions of harassment.
> 
> *Would it be beneficial for Convention policies to give at least an indicative idea of what constitutes harassment?*
> 
> There are some behaviours that the perpetrator clearly knows are not welcome or appropriate, and these perpetrators are not going to be deterred by any code. But there is a lot of marginal activity too (such as some of what SPF is accused of) that may be appropriate in some contexts but not in others. And social mores change too, behaviour typical in 1978 may be seen as reprehensible in 2018.
> 
> Would an indicative list of behaviour considered inappropriate be helpful to deter the marginal cases? On the evidence given, I don't believe SPF considered his behaviour to amount to harassment, and if you want it stopped then giving examples of undesired behaviour could be helpful and perhaps create greater certainty.




I believe some examples are necessary. In addition to helping potential harassers avoid the edge cases, especially with gross pick-up culture out there, one reason not often mentioned is to help inform the victims. Since sexual harassment has not been taken very seriously for so long, there are many instances of someone feeling harassed but doubting whether those in charge would agree. So at a convention, an incident might occur that isn't as blatant as groping, but the person feels harassed and the convention would consider it harassment, however, without the convention stating that as an example, the victim might reasonably be skeptical and not report it. The history of society and our industry in particular isn't real stellar in creating confidence in victims that they will be taken seriously unless a case is blatantly egregious (and sometimes even then it still hasn't been taken seriously!).

Plus add in being a witness to a situation like that, and there can be even more doubt about whether they should do something or not. Women have been indoctrinated to not be confrontational, so even watching their reaction might not be enough to clarify whether it was harassment or not if you are a witness. Too many situations can fall into an area of doubt, which historically usually leads to massive underreporting.

So I think a list of examples is absolutely necessary, not just to curtail potential harassers who are either uninformed or want to push the boundaries, but to tell potential witnesses and victims that the convention will take reports seriously even if they aren't over-the-top egregious.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> As I wrote before, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog.




Yes and no. Several in this thread have revealed themselves as attack dogs. Maybe not as canine, technically... 



lowkey13 said:


> If I had written, "I would almost guarantee that you haven't read all of the software EULAs that you have accepted," would you have written the same response?* Would that have been an issue of "check your privilege," or not knowing what other marginalized individuals' life experiences are?




No, I would not have written the same response. I would have pointed out that EULAs are a tool of publishers, and are therefore apples-to-oranges in a discussion of how cons can discourage harassment. Con harassment largely (if not always) occurs across power differential. Resources for people who have been harassed at a con, are generally resources for people on the lower side of a power differential. (Differentials including, but not limited to, guest of honor vs. first-time atttender; and gender, age, etc. See also: Daniel Holtzclaw.)  Workplace anti-harassment posters (and OSHA and so forth) exist largely for the benefit of employees who are generally, as individuals, *on the lower side of a power differential relative to their employers*. The rest of your post suggests that you are sufficiently familiar with those posters, that you should know the difference between increasing and decreasing the tilt of those differentials, and should not need this explanation of why con posters are much, much closer in intent to OSHA posters than to EULAs.

So why that hypothetical question about my response if you had asked about EULAs? Are you trying to transfer the jury's annoyance with EULAs, to me, via rhetorical questions? No dice, sir; I'm already annoying enough; also, consider the voir dire. The jury you're looking for is in another castle.



lowkey13 said:


> So, while I don't doubt that you do this (on day 1 of each new job), I also don't understand how these mandated posted allow you to determine exactly where your boundaries fall.




True statement. "Technically correct; the BEST kind of correct!" You do not understand. Why do you claim a lack of understanding, as if it were a point of pride?

The posters, as you already know, rarely provide the full text of the relevant codes, let alone the case history; and those are not the most useful content for their typical reader. They provide a general statement of intent, from which I can infer, though with only rough estimation, something about where those boundaries *might* fall in a win-win scenario. The posters refer to more comprehensive sources, such as websites. Furthermore, their text isn't their only utility. If I'm pushing back, against a supervisor's demand which violates anti-harassment rules or other protections, then I'll start that conversation in a location such that when she says "Do it if you wanna keep your job", I can *point* at the posters. Though she may have never read *any* of the poster text, and she won't read posters there-and-then, the posters offer her a reminder that there is authority other than hers. (Or his, as the case may be.)

Comparisons between workplace anti-harassment posters, and documentation at cons (from posters on billboards, to policy summaries in program books, to QR codes on badges), as resources for people who want to know who might take their side, and who they should talk to next, are so trivially obvious that I leave them to your imagination. You have some knowledge of what improves resolution of harassment in workplaces; apply that to cons. You can do it!

I don't know, from what you've said, whether you have more experience siding with employers (analogous to con owners), or with individual workers, or with unions, or something else. But dang, are you working towards the most legally defensible approach, which gives con organizations the strongest claim of due diligence? Or are you looking for the most ground-up, culturally-rooted, nip-it-in-the-bud approach to making people like RedJenOSU and AfroDyte safer at cons, and thus more inclined to attend? Or something else?

The one time I was harassed at work, the harasser was the union shop steward. Does your mind jump to the relative role of the union versus the role of the employer? Or elsewhere? I asked her to keep her hands to herself, and from them on she did. No human, other than me and her, knew the he-said-she-said. If con harassment were resolved, more often, in such manner, then that would delight me as a human and a gamer, though it would neither intrigue nor employ me as a litigator. Words you won't often hear, from lawyers who chase profit: "I'm glad that worked out so easily".

If you are, as you say, always surprised, then I offer you this advice: mix your high-quality attention to the law, with more attention to people at other levels. Perhaps then you will more often anticipate how people will feel, when they read or hear your words, and therefore you will more often accurately anticipate the tone of their responses.

I have a wild speculation about how you feel, right now, reading these words. Maybe you're bristling and eager to one-up me, to point out the flaws in my words, to establish EN World dominance. Prove me wrong?

Could your next post, instead, do something towards making people like RedJenOSU and AfroDyte safer at cons, and thus more inclined to attend? If you want to also send me, directly, a nastygram, then go ahead. Blow off some steam, tear me a new one. Overload the profanity filter. Right after you add something to the cumulative resources of the project at hand. Heck, two birds with one stone: roll back to my post on Alphacon and Betacon, and tear it to shreds, by elaborating better methods of making BetaCon possible. You'll have victory over me, *and* over con harassers. One small step, towards tilting power differentials in the direction of justice. Justice is the goal of law, right?


----------



## S'mon

kenmarable said:


> I believe some examples are necessary. In addition to helping potential harassers avoid the edge cases, especially with gross pick-up culture out there, one reason not often mentioned is to help inform the victims. Since sexual harassment has not been taken very seriously for so long, there are many instances of someone feeling harassed but doubting whether those in charge would agree. So at a convention, an incident might occur that isn't as blatant as groping, but the person feels harassed and the convention would consider it harassment, however, without the convention stating that as an example, the victim might reasonably be skeptical and not report it. The history of society and our industry in particular isn't real stellar in creating confidence in victims that they will be taken seriously unless a case is blatantly egregious (and sometimes even then it still hasn't been taken seriously!).
> 
> Plus add in being a witness to a situation like that, and there can be even more doubt about whether they should do something or not. Women have been indoctrinated to not be confrontational, so even watching their reaction might not be enough to clarify whether it was harassment or not if you are a witness. Too many situations can fall into an area of doubt, which historically usually leads to massive underreporting.
> 
> So I think a list of examples is absolutely necessary, not just to curtail potential harassers who are either uninformed or want to push the boundaries, but to tell potential witnesses and victims that the convention will take reports Hi even if they aren't over-the-top egregious.




Yes I agree. I think more certainty would be beneficial for both parties and for onlookers.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> Quick aside, since I must have missed this in the past 900+ comments.
> 
> What is glagtery? Is that a placeholder for something else?




DannyAlcatraz invented the word as a place-holder for a form of criminal behavior. He was addressing the "we will never eliminate it so why bother" argument, IIRC. He pointed out that the legal system can deter and thus reduce the incidence of glagtery, perhaps as follows: reduction by 50% at a cost of $N (in police time, court costs, etc.), reduction by 75% at a much higher cost (N^2$?), reduction by 87.5% at a MUCH higher cost, which requires higher taxes and also civil liberties (chip in everyone's neck, etc.). Thus it's better to settle for the lower effort, and preserve resources for other tasks such as military defense, social safety nets, plague prevention, etc.

A good argument, but now that I give it more attention per your question, DannyAlcatraz didn't discuss the interplay between law enforcement, and factors at other levels, such as peer pressure, and differing values (Vulcan immigrants consider it normal while Romulan immigrants consider it abominable, there's a neighborhood where both live side by side, and all too often, humans get them confused). Also whether glagtery harms anyone other than the participants. See also: Mills "On Liberty".

I ran with the term, as if glagtery were a victimless crime when done with the mutual informed consent of all three individuals involved, and as if it were controversial in the TRPG con community (though not at GlagterCon).

Some people in this thread have equated "sexual attention only with clear consent!" and "ban male sexuality!". Comparisons with glagtery are a slippery slope, because the term's referent is not clearly established.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RedJenOSU

billd91 said:


> No, in a perfect world, anybody could let their hair down, relax, dress in any manner they choose, get a drink at the convention hotel bar, get wasted in a suite party... and not be  judged, sexually harassed, discriminated against, or become the victim of a sex crime.





Calithorne said:


> You will have to abolish the sex instinct in all men to accomplish it.



That is a giant crock of !

Are you seriously saying that men are unable to control their bodies and prevent sexual attacks? Study after study has concluded that sexual attacks rarely if ever have anything to do with being overcome with sexuality. Sex crimes are almost always about displaying power over the less powerful.

If Sex crimes were about sex, we'd have a long list of lesbian sex offenders attacking other women. 

If you can't control your penis, then grow up and do something to control it. It is not mine or any other woman's job to control your body.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RedJenOSU

lowkey13 said:


> The person you are replying to has been banned from the thread for his comments; that said, your points are correct.



Yeah, I posted it before I had slogged through the all the updates since I had to go away for a few days of jury duty.


----------



## Particle_Man

Another idea is to make sure that little children and their parents are treated with respect at cons.  Way back in the day when I went to a con (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) I was part of a game where a baby nearby was crying and the parent took the baby out and the GM lost his temper and cussed out the parent. That seems wrong. I also heard of a report where a parent was with a small child at a big comic/tv/movie con and a TV Star passed by and just tickled the kid’s belly but without permission. I thing that addressing things like this could also be done while addressing sexual harassment. The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.

If this is too far off topic I apologize.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> It's like Judge Learned Hand's PL > B.
> 
> (The burden of taking precautions must be less than the probability of loss * gravity of the loss).




Hey, you taught me something new-to-me: the "calculus of negligence". Thanks! Well, you brought it to my attention and then I skimmed a bit. I think that's kinda where DannyAlcatraz was going, except that he was discussing resource allocation by the government, rather than by private actors.

Insofar as I understand DannyAlcatraz's intent, he was framing the role of con management, in deterring harassment, as equivalent with the role of the government, in deterring crime; and he was talking only stick methods, with no mention of carrot methods.  In terms of prevention cost, one can equate the government spending $1M on putting more cops on the street, with the government spending $1M on sponsoring more "This is your brain on drugs!" advertisements. Yet those are non-identical in secondary and side effects. (Especially: which streets?) 

As for circular firing squads...

Yeah, I could do better. So far as I can tell, so could you. Let's both work on that? Let's give the "status quo defenders", Team BWBB (Boys will be Boys), more grief that we give each other? If you are confident that your hands are clean on that count, then I'll raise two points, and after that, opinions from people other than me, will be more useful than anything further from my biased perspective.

(1) Calithorne jumped into the thread. Elfcrusher quickly and accurately saw where Calithorne was going. Sadras snarked with "Alarmist much?". I saw Sadras siding with Calithorne, and in the process, *dismissing alarmism*. Dismissal of alarmism is a position which correlates very closely "there's no problem here, everything at cons is fine, boys will be boys, this is all a fuss over nothing, no one proved anything against Fannon." (A position which Fannon has disavowed.) You don't have to believe my individual story about my relatives in 1940s Germany, to take the point that some people have more "skin in the game" than Sadras does, and thus don't take lightly to dismissals of alarmism. There are all too many people with those stories, and so far as I know, *every* Holocaust survivor in the USA who has spoken up since 2016, is sounding alarms, *none* of them are saying this will just blow over. Is this the thread and topic, for responding to concerns, with immediate, reflexive dismissals of alarmism?

I didn't lose anyone, personally, at Isla Vista, nor at Toronto, but the people who feel less safe after those incidents, have a LOT in common with those who feel less safe *at cons*. Some of the language that Calithorne was using, is a close cousin to some of the language frequently used by fans of Eliot Roger. Are you open to the possibility that Elfcrusher knew something you didn't, about incels and how to recognize their close relatives in the manosphere? In much the same way that I recognize "blood and soil" as a phrase with a certain history, overlapping with my family history, when I hear it at Charlottesville? (Again: discount my story, maybe I'm a dog, but this dog recognizes that phrase.)

This is where you come in: you jump in, defending Sadras. So when Sadras yokes his wagon to Calithorne, and then you rise to Sadras's defense, because how dare anyone object to his accusations of alarmism... . at that point, what was your role in the process towards a circular firing squad?

Hint: you *eventually* saw Calithorne for what he was; notice whose IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) triggered long before yours did.

Did the posts (and the XPs) from *those who are most at risk from harassment at cons* play any role in how you stepped in? One of the "out" woman in the conversation has apparently concluded that I'm also a woman. Maybe I'm a dog, but if so, I bark online like a bitch. Maybe that's because I never defend anyone who's defending Calithorne; because I listen more to those who *do* have skin in the game, than to you and Sadras. (Sadras has, since Calithorne escalated all the way to ban, marked an Elfcrusher post with +XP. IMO that "+XP" falls way, way short of "Hey, you were right, I was wrong, next time I'll be slower to publicly mock you as an alarmist.")

(2) Cons and posters and EULAs. Yeah, you were trying to help. You're on Team Less Harassment.

Maybe you'll give some awesome help to the team which does poster layout, in terms of how much text belongs where, and what's best referred to other documents. I think you're fundamentally mistaken, in terms how whether the primary function of those posters, is the text on them. The post-guillotine heads of the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory would be more effective, for my purposes. They serve notice that there is someone *other* than the employer, who has the power to impose consequences. *All* of the text could be elsewhere, so long as the posters (or skulls) make the point that The Boss is not G-d. Well, we can disagree on posters, in this thread. Your methods, my methods, shared goals.

But, goodness... was it prudent to presume, in this thread of all threads, that anti-harassment posters (or ADA posters) in the workplace, are a safe and neutral analogy, with no "third rail" possibilities? Take my story of about requesting the workplace accommodation of "swastika-free work environment" as a hypothetical; I personally am a dog, or maybe an AI. But are there no other stories, from verifiable sources, of people who did something along the line of putting their ADA requests on the back burner, because they felt a overriding moral imperative, to first prod their employer into providing a swastika-free work environment?

It took over a month - wait, I'm a dog, it took however long it took some verifiable source to get the swastika graffiti out of THEIR workplace. Because managers have other priorities; Corporate is grading them on customer satisfaction feedback, not on whether employees see a swastika every time they use the gorram bathroom, and a work ticket for "remove swastika graffiti" processes no faster than a work ticket for "fix a leaky sink". Does your experience indicate otherwise?

For some of us, ANY topic involving harassment is touchy, *and that includes workplace harassment*, whether sexual or racial or otherwise (though sexual is the focus of this thread). If you can make your point *without* making assertions and analogies which rest on the role of posters in workplace harassment, then please do. For this thread. When you're laying out the poster, THEN check workplace posters for the optimum ratio of "We're Proud To Be A Safe Workplace!" with "here's our harassment policy" with "here's the hotline".

Okay. There's my two examples. That's why I'm so touchy about the workplace analogy. Maybe I'm extra and unreasonably touchy about swastikas in the workplace. If it's just me, then it's just me, block as needed. If it's not just me, if anyone who's been harassed at a con says "I also would find your posts more helpful if you shift your assumptions", then you have my request, and act as you see fit.

If it matters, what I've done so far: grain of salt on everything other than EN World, including my unverifiable claim about using every leverage I could to get swastika graffiti out of a bathroom at a store, and my unverifiable claim 
of successfully asking my union shop steward to stop touching my butt. Would you accept, as evidence, my participation in other threads than this one, such as GenCon's response to Indiana's homophobia three years ago, or "Race vs. Ancestry" last month? Failing that, zooming in on this thread: even if my story about workplace sexual harassment is hypothetical or second-hand, at least it's on topic.

DannyAlcatraz asked what price people would pay, to attend cons with less sexual harassment; I was among the few to answer, and I extended my answer from $ price to behavioral. (I'm about to spend $80 on KublaCon. I'd gladly kick in another $20 for better anti-harassment. Negotiable, upwards.)

Rygar said... something Rygarish, he's gone now, about how anti-harassment would doom not just cons, but the entire TRPG industry, to economic failure. I laid out a schema for how the con market could self-segregate, with some con attenders preferring BWBB cons, and others preferring low-tolerance cons. I offered some specifics of how the two would differ, and raised the question of whether they'd both turn a profit. (Hooters isn't my cup of tea, but if it draws its target market *away* from the bar where I hang with co-ed sports league teammates, so much the better for both.)

I consider Troll Patrol useful; yeah, the mods stop the worst of them, eventually, but in the meantime, I see some merit in Elfcrusher spotting Calithorne, and I've done some of the same, because the shifting mix of good-faith and whataboutism makes the thread into Difficult Terrain.

I wrote an impassioned appeal to legalize glagtery. Dunno if that counts? Only insofar as occasional humor may offset the dryness of legalistic posts, in the mix of such a painful topic for survivors. I outed myself, not as a dog, but as an AI. (just kidding - all of my parents are real humans! with two opposable thumbs each! I even have a gender!)

But you're asking the wrong person. Self-assessment is notoriously biased. Does RedJenOSU find any of my contributions valuable? Or Jeanneliza? Do you care whether AfroDyte put me on her list of EN Worders whom she sees as potential harassers, if she ran into them at a con, and she turned down their advances? (I say she's safe from me, as I think twice before flirting with women who are out as lesbians, but does *she* see IFF factors in my online interactions with her?)

*sigh* Did you make your saving throw against Wall of Text? My fingertips would be bleeding, if I had fingers.

Thanks again for the Learned Hand reference.


----------



## Riley37

Particle_Man said:


> The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.




Yes. Also: there is some relationship between how harassers act across the power differential of gender, and how they act across the power differential of age. Also: anyone taking care of a child is extra vulnerable, because of drains on their stamina and patience, and because "don't do conflict in front of my child" is an inhibiting factor for responding to exploratory pre-harassment precursor behavior with "go away or I'll ask for help! I'll escalate to Con Security if that's what it takes!" Not that women have any more role than men, in who takes how much care of a baby or a child at a con.

Also there is some relationship between how predators treat pre-adolescents, adolescents, and post-adolescents. Here's a creepy story. I recall a con, at which a teenage girl was in a social room. She stepped out, came back in a corset, and suddenly received a LOT more attention from men of various ages. I was sufficiently disturbed that I dropped out of the conversation. After a while, she took off the corset, and the flow of male attention cut off like a faucet. I wanted to become a counter-example, to all the dynamics in play: "you get more attention in a corset", "men try to sit next to you or move in for hugs", etc. So I started a game of catch with her. We got along fine, on that basis; never physically close enough to provoke Attack of Opportunity, as we were chatting while tossing a ball back and forth (and others as they joined in), but we had a good conversation. She was charming and bright. The guys who only made bids for her attention when she was wearing the corset, connected less with her WIS and INT. I called it a success for "Operation Not All Men". Haven't crossed her path again, don't expect to.


----------



## Umbran

Riley37 said:


> Hey, you taught me something new-to-me: the "calculus of negligence". Thanks! Well, you brought it to my attention and then I skimmed a bit. I think that's kinda where DannyAlcatraz was going, except that he was discussing resource allocation by the government, rather than by private actors.
> 
> Insofar as I understand DannyAlcatraz's intent, he was framing the role of con management, in deterring harassment, as equivalent with the role of the government, in deterring crime; and he was talking only stick methods, with no mention of carrot methods.  In terms of prevention cost, one can equate the government spending $1M on putting more cops on the street, with the government spending $1M on sponsoring more "This is your brain on drugs!" advertisements. Yet those are non-identical in secondary and side effects. (Especially: which streets?)




If you think in terms of *net* cost, then whther you are talking about carrots or sticks is irrelevant.  It still holds that *any* method of reacing a goal has a cost, and you can weigh the cost of the next step towards the goal with the benefit of that step.

In non-political examples, we can look at credit card fraud prevention.  SOme basic steps to prevent fraud are cheap - say it costs you $5 to prevent $1000 in fraud - well, that's a no-brainer, right?  BUt, as you add on prevention tactics, you get diminising returns.  After a few steps that cost $5 to save $1000, you have some steps that cost $10 to save $1000.  Then steps that cost $100 to save $1000.  When it gets up to the point where it costs $1005 to stop $1000 in fraud... you stop trying to prevent it, and you just accept the fraud as part of the cost of doing business.

Note that it doesn't matter if the measures are punitive against the offender, or supportive of the customer, or neutral technical improvements on a website.  WHen the solution costs (in whatever reources - money, person-hours, emotional spoons, what have you) more than what they save, you don't make the expenditure.


----------



## Riley37

Umbran said:


> If you think in terms of *net* cost, then whther you are talking about carrots or sticks is irrelevant.  It still holds that *any* method of reacing a goal has a cost, and you can weigh the cost of the next step towards the goal with the benefit of that step.




True. That's exactly where DannyAlcatraz was going with the example of glagtery suppression.

I stand by my assertion that there are benefits which are not best calculated in dollars, and costs not best calculated in dollars. His example, before it reached "$1005 to prevent $1000", included chipping all citizens to track their movements. Yeah, there's a dollar cost of the chips and the implantation surgery and the massive AI to run pattern checks for three people in a configuration consistent with glagtery. But that process also has a cost to privacy; to public trust; to whether that regime becomes permanent, because the same AI is also useful for tracking political rivals, and for *selective enforcement* of anti-glagtery laws. I am aware of arguments that all of those factors can be reduced to a dollar cost. I guess I'll just agree to disagree, on that aspect.

Burke: "Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it."
Ripley: "They can bill me."

 - Aliens, 1986


----------



## Umbran

Riley37 said:


> True. That's exactly where DannyAlcatraz was going with the example of glagtery suppression.
> 
> I stand by my assertion that there are benefits which are not best calculated in dollars, and costs not best calculated in dollars.




Which is why I mentioned "in whatever resources".  

Human privacy, for example, is a resource - you can have more or less of it.  It is difficult to give that a straight dollar value, sure.  But we humans still do cost-benefit comparisons, and come to a conclusion whether it is dollars or not - do I want X more, or Y more?  The important point is that eventually, preventing an undesired behavior has a higher cost than the behavior itself, at whcih point a rational person stops trying to prevent the behavior.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328

Umbran said:


> In non-political examples, we can look at credit card fraud prevention.  SOme basic steps to prevent fraud are cheap - say it costs you $5 to prevent $1000 in fraud - well, that's a no-brainer, right?  BUt, as you add on prevention tactics, you get diminising returns.  After a few steps that cost $5 to save $1000, you have some steps that cost $10 to save $1000.  Then steps that cost $100 to save $1000.  When it gets up to the point where it costs $1005 to stop $1000 in fraud... you stop trying to prevent it, and you just accept the fraud as part of the cost of doing business.




Also, the 2nd and 3rd step likely reduce the effectiveness of the 1st step.  So if, later on, you reduce spending on the 1st step, you mind find that the ratio is no longer 20:1.


----------



## Riley37

Umbran said:


> Which is why I mentioned "in whatever resources".
> 
> Human privacy, for example, is a resource - you can have more or less of it.  It is difficult to give that a straight dollar value, sure.  But we humans still do cost-benefit comparisons, and come to a conclusion whether it is dollars or not - do I want X more, or Y more?  The important point is that eventually, preventing an undesired behavior has a higher cost than the behavior itself, at whcih point a rational person stops trying to prevent the behavior.




I posted, stepped away, then realized while chopping fruit that I had failed to fully address your point as framed, and you beat me to it! Yes, you mentioned currencies other than dollars.

If we can stop or prevent $1000 in shoplifting, and also prevent 100 lost "spoons" of frustration among people who re-stock shelves; at the cost of $995, and 50 more "spoons" of clerks watching the shop aisles like mother bears with cubs; is the net cost of 50 "spoons" worth the net gain of $5? Depends on the spoon-dollar ratio.

So if spending $500 to hire a "Consent Captain" for EN-CON, results in a 37% reduction in harassment complaints, was that a worthwhile trade-off, or was it past the point of diminishing returns? What if deeper study shows a reduction in *complaints*, but an increase in *incidents*? Will the con pay more to reduce gropes of minors, than catcalls of adults, or vice versa?

The question of diminishing returns is still in force. But the involvement of multiple currencies is still an issue. Someone will have to decide, whether upgrading that investment to $1000 is worth the differential in returns on all of those axes in combination. Better you than me!


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION]
> 
> I appreciate you taking the time to write the long, and thoughtful, response. I would like to articulate my perspective.




I agree with some of that, disagree with other parts, will ponder, might decide that a longer response is useful, might post, might PM, might not. For now: thank you for the thoughtful, and mercifully briefer, response.


----------



## billd91

Particle_Man said:


> Another idea is to make sure that little children and their parents are treated with respect at cons.  Way back in the day when I went to a con (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) I was part of a game where a baby nearby was crying and the parent took the baby out and the GM lost his temper and cussed out the parent. That seems wrong. I also heard of a report where a parent was with a small child at a big comic/tv/movie con and a TV Star passed by and just tickled the kid’s belly but without permission. I thing that addressing things like this could also be done while addressing sexual harassment. The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.
> 
> If this is too far off topic I apologize.




Probably not too far - it's a topic that's either in the same ballpark or the one next door - treating people decently in a public setting, treating them with respect, treating them as you'd like to be treated, respecting their boundaries, and so on - rather than using them as an vehicle for you own selfish needs whether sexual, power-tripping, or even just venting frustration.


----------



## Jeanneliza

And going into what? Ten days now of ongoing discussion, to reach the point of finding those points we do agree on, learning to recognize what the others may say that because our life experience is simply different we may have failed to recognize what they actually mean. I am impressed, I rarely see one of these discussion go more than a day or two, 3 if you are lucky, and the subject is dropped until the next well known person is outed, in a month or a year or whenever, and very little changes in between.
Before this comes to an end I want to add, making Cons, indeed society, safer for the weakest is NOT a zero sum game. Taking steps to make sure women and other marginalized populations are safer and can get about their daily lives with less fear does not equal making it less safe for anyone else. In fact the opposite it true. Once you begin to notice the thousand and one little indignities some around you endure every day, it is a short step to noticing when those same indignities are being inflicted on one you perceive as like you.
All though I only game online, and have only endured a fraction of what some have dealt with, only once did I make a formal complaint to a forum moderator about something I had witnessed and took screen shots of before it could be taken down. What I saw that alarmed me was something that because of training in suicide prevention sent up my other red flags. It was the bullying of a white male of about 25, and his posted response sent up the flags of potential suicide warnings. I contacted him privately and asked if he was okay, that I had seen what had happened, saved the evidence, and told him not to let that particular actor get to him others had had problems before and so on. I was quite relieved to find out he wasn't suicidal, because smashing his computer had relieved his pain. Not a great choice either, but see, it wasn't because of his gender I reached out, it was because my life experience and awareness saw a human being hurting, the same awareness that was trained because of harassment etc women deal with daily. This is what I mean about once you guys start noticing the suffering of women, or transgender or gender fluid or disabled or any other marginalized group, you become more aware of it amongst yourselves as well. And more likely to act.
I have grandsons that belong to these marginalized groups, I know they have experienced bullying, and I know they are also more sensitive to when others are bullied as a result. Harassment, sexual assault, because they are more about power than anything else are specific types of bullying. 
Once you address it to help the weakest, again, you open your eyes to how prevalent it is among your gender AGAINST your own gender.
My grandson has been the victim of false allegations, but it was a guy behind it. You guys may not see it, but you can be even worse to your own gender than you are to others. Teasing guys about being sissies, or being virgins, or not being cool enough and so on is your gender hurting your own, and if you over look how women are treated, do you ever really notice when guys are treated badly either?


----------



## Hussar

Just as a question, as a non-American, what is a "Title IX"?  I've seen that tossed around a few times, and in context it appears to be some sort of harassment rules or law?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Hussar said:


> Just as a question, as a non-American, what is a "Title IX"?  I've seen that tossed around a few times, and in context it appears to be some sort of harassment rules or law?




Federal Sex discrimination law.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Federal Sex *anti*-discrimination law.




Fixed.

Understandable mistake these days, though.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Elfcrusher said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Understandable mistake these days, though.




Did you think i was implying it was a law making sexual discrimination legal or something?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Did you think i was implying it was a law making sexual discrimination legal or something?




Not intentionally, no.  Just a funny omission.  (At least, I thought so...)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Nevermind, not sure why that got my hackles up.


----------



## RedJenOSU

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Nevermind, not sure why that got my hackles up.



In the current climate, it pays (or paints a target on your back) to ensure that you are not being lumped into (insert group here).


----------



## Particle_Man

I am paranoid enough that when enworld went down for a little while today I thought it might have been due to hackers angry at the existence of this thread.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Particle_Man said:


> I am paranoid enough that when enworld went down for a little while today I thought it might have been due to hackers angry at the existence of this thread.




Same here


----------



## Catulle

Calithorne said:


> You will have to abolish the sex instinct in all men to accomplish it.




I swear I'm trying to get up to speed with the thread, but this might be the most ridiculous thing I've read thus far.

No, you don't.

It's fine to have a sex drive.

It's not fine to harrass people in pursuit of that.

How... difficult? Really?


----------



## Catulle

Advilaar said:


> No. Be careful with implying or assuming. It may earn points with some, but makes you appear like a zealot.




Transl. "Be very careful, uppity lady!"


----------



## Catulle

lowkey13 said:


> Then you have others- like the "pick up artists" and the like. Some of them might be considered predators, some are just habitual line crossers.




Does it matter, really? Outcomes/Impacts are *should be* what we're concerned with in the field, right?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Catulle said:


> Does it matter, really? Outcomes/Impacts are *should be* what we're concerned with in the field, right?




Exactly. First you stop the bleeding, then you worry about everything else.

Or, in non-metaphorical terms, first you stop the harassment. _Then_ (maybe) you start getting into the different reasons why people were harassing, and see if any of them can be salvaged. But stopping the harm is priority one.


----------



## jasper

Hussar said:


> Just as a question, as a non-American, what is a "Title IX"?  I've seen that tossed around a few times, and in context it appears to be some sort of harassment rules or law?



This does an okay job of explaining it. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX


----------



## Eltab

kenmarable said:


> Once I caught up on the thread



I'm still a ways behind you ...


> Plus, most people wouldn't consider themselves a potential harasser and so might filter out "Don't do this" messages, but most people might consider themselves potential victims or witnesses, and therefore are more likely to read messages aimed at them in that context, which still builds an awareness that can influence their own behavior.



I don't know how to put enough +1's on this.

The nonsense aimed at people who are not modern hip and 'with it' as being automatically guilty of every possible crime and perversion known to Man, is a self-inflicted stumbling-block to making the progress that is desired.
Rev. MLK made progress on a social change issue even after he was laid in his grave because he opened a path for each individual to improve themselves, rather than pounding on people for their sins - real or accused.

*Show / tell the people who want to help when a problem develops before them, how to help.*  Watch the amount of problems go down.


----------



## billd91

For anyone wondering about how the economics of cons will be affected (and the assumption they might be hurt by more vigorous anti-harassment policies), check out this article:
How Women Are Driving the Dungeons & Dragons Renaissance

The number of women playing D&D is up, significantly, and increasingly visible in the market (thanks to streaming play like Critical Role) and that means that an increasingly large slice of the potential con-going market is going to be identifying as female. Cons alienating this growing segment of the market by not addressing safety concerns will be doing so at their own long-term peril.


----------



## Dire Bare

Particle_Man said:


> Another idea is to make sure that little children and their parents are treated with respect at cons.  Way back in the day when I went to a con (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) I was part of a game where a baby nearby was crying and the parent took the baby out and the GM lost his temper and cussed out the parent. That seems wrong. I also heard of a report where a parent was with a small child at a big comic/tv/movie con and a TV Star passed by and just tickled the kid’s belly but without permission. I thing that addressing things like this could also be done while addressing sexual harassment. The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.
> 
> If this is too far off topic I apologize.




Rather than a sexual harassment policy, I would rather see events have harassment policies, which would include sexual harassment and all sorts of other harassment, such as racial, ageist, or harassing parents for bringing their kids . . .


----------



## Umbran

Dire Bare said:


> Rather than a sexual harassment policy, I would rather see events have harassment policies, which would include sexual harassment and all sorts of other harassment, such as racial, ageist, or harassing parents for bringing their kids . . .




You will note that the real-world, currently-in-use example I posted upthread was a general harassment policy - it includes sexual harassment, but is not limited to it.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Dire Bare said:


> Rather than a sexual harassment policy, I would rather see events have harassment policies, which would include sexual harassment and all sorts of other harassment, such as racial, ageist, or harassing parents for bringing their kids . . .




EXACTLY. Harassment is bullying. Bullying is killing people all across our society. This is EVERYONE'S problem, and no sub-group is immune. Laughing at some guy because he isn't getting "laid" putting pressure on HIM to meet some macho standard is just as harmful as sexually harassing anyone.
These problems have been cyclical and passed generation to generation for too long. And conversations like these are how the cycle is eventually broken.


----------



## Elf Witch

S'mon said:


> Re the OP, and I do take eg Elf Witch's points seriously...
> 
> One thing I noticed about the Gencon policy is that it does not give a definition of harassment. Legal definitions typically involve repeated inappropriate behaviour, so following someone around oggling them could well count - and if asked to desist certainly would count IMO. An undesired sexual comment usually does not meet legal definitions of harassment.
> 
> *Would it be beneficial for Convention policies to give at least an indicative idea of what constitutes harassment?*
> 
> There are some behaviours that the perpetrator clearly knows are not welcome or appropriate, and these perpetrators are not going to be deterred by any code. But there is a lot of marginal activity too (such as some of what SPF is accused of) that may be appropriate in some contexts but not in others. And social mores change too, behaviour typical in 1978 may be seen as reprehensible in 2018.
> 
> Would an indicative list of behaviour considered inappropriate be helpful to deter the marginal cases? On the evidence given, I don't believe SPF considered his behaviour to amount to harassment, and if you want it stopped then giving examples of undesired behaviour could be helpful and perhaps create greater certainty.




Most have no racial , religious, sexual slurs posted as harassment. I have also seen no touching without permission, no upskirt photographs, no excessive following, and explanations of when someone asks that you leave them alone you leave them alone.


----------



## Elf Witch

I have been going to cons since the 1970s and the issue of harassment is nothing new. My very first Worldcon I was had just turned 18. The drinking age in Florida was 18 and there was a lot of booze at the con plus it was the mid 70s and sexual mores were different there were no AIDS/HIV so there was more of a hook up culture. I was in an elevator after the Hugos and one very drunk young author got very hands on with me and didn't want to take no I am really not interested.  Well he was interrupted by the legendary Robert Heinlein and his lovely wife getting on the elevator. I did complain to the con committee as did several others women who he got aggressive with over the weekend and we were all told the same thing that they knew he was like that once he got a few drinks in him and to just watch out for him. So for years women used to warn other women about his behavior and we put up with it because he was a big name author. To be fair the men who attended tried to keep an eye on him but he still managed to grope a lot of women over the years he was Worldcon and SFWA dirty little secret. 

Things have changed though this kind of behavior is no longer tolerated at the Worldcon even if you are a author and member of the SFWA you will be banned for it took years of looking the other way but finally something was done to stop sexually harresment at Worldcon each Worldcon has its own policies but they have one and more and more regional literary cons are doing them as well.  

Other cons are starting though they need to do better Comic Con is supposed to have a anti harassment policy but it does not tell people where to report it or it did not several years that may have changed. I understand Dragoncon is trying to address the issue. 

These rules did to apply to everyone con goers, staff and people in power ie authors, actors, game designers.  

One of the best way to address this issue is not just to have a policy in place that describe what harassment is , but also how and where to report it and to have an atmosphere where the person reporting does not fear being ridiculed or not believed. Look at some of the comments here from men who still actually believe that harassment is based on how attractive the guy doing it is. Or believe that women are going to just accuse men of it for asking for their phone numbers or for some other baseless reason.   

And you still have men who believe that is happens because some cosplayers dress in sexy costumes and there is booze and parties at some cons. SMH.  In spite of the fact that sexual harassment happens at business conventions where there are no cosplaying and no wild parties. 

Besides there is harassment besides sexual people have been harassed because of their race or sexaulity at cons. 

I think cons need to be serious on handling cases of harassment Yes you are busy but it is part of the job of running a con so you need to have a policy and plan on what to do. 

Con goers can help too by being aware of what is going on around them and if you see questionable behavior you don't have to step in you can report it. For example it was reported to us that a guy was positioned so he could get pictures of women as they bent over to to get drinks from a water fountain he had been there for hours. Someone watched him and yep that was what he was doing and we stepped in.


----------



## Sadras

Elf Witch said:


> For example it was reported to us that a guy was positioned so he could get pictures of women as they bent over to to get drinks from a water fountain he had been there for hours. Someone watched him and yep that was what he was doing and we stepped in.




Is there enough security or staff employed to deal with situations like these at Cons? I imagine every year such Cons increase in numbers, especially given the recent growth of women into the hobbies, so presumably more security will be required year on year.

Does Con management keep a record of the harassment complaints and compare such statistical data year on year and from place to place, noting increases/decreases, problem areas, common harassment complaints or types of harassment...etc? Are the drinking lounges monitored?
I'm assuming yes to all these. If the data is being analysed then certainly corrective measures can be made when problem areas are identified.

Out of interest do you know, from being on such committees, what the average number of harassment complaints are for a weekend Con?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Elf Witch said:


> Most have no racial , religious, sexual slurs posted as harassment. I have also seen no touching without permission, no upskirt photographs, no excessive following, and explanations of when someone asks that you leave them alone you leave them alone.



In other words: stuff that should be obvious to anyone who has completed the first grade, but somehow isn't.
.


----------



## Hussar

Again, as far as security goes, remember, most con's are only a couple of hundred people.  I've been to wedding receptions of that size.  You don't really need to hire security for something that small.  Sure, if you're talking GenCon or something like that, fair enough, but, 99% of conventions are probably a lot less than a thousand attendees. 

I think the point though about having clear reporting procedures is well made.  It's not enough just to have the code of conduct, it has to be clear who you are supposed to talk to if there is an issue.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Again, as far as security goes, remember, most con's are only a couple of hundred people.  I've been to wedding receptions of that size.  You don't really need to hire security for something that small.  Sure, if you're talking GenCon or something like that, fair enough, but, 99% of conventions are probably a lot less than a thousand attendees.




I'm surprised, I didn't realise the Cons (and I'm referring to gaming/comic Cons) being so small, especially in the US. Had the impression they were larger.


----------



## Lanefan

Sadras said:


> I'm surprised, I didn't realise the Cons (and I'm referring to gaming/comic Cons) being so small, especially in the US. Had the impression they were larger.



Across North America there's maybe 20 big - as in 5-digit-or-close attendance figures, and widely-based appeal - conventions per year, and about a gajillion little ones most of which are either a broad-appeal con in a small or isolated centre or a limited-appeal con (e.g. for a single franchise or interest) in a bigger market.


----------



## Hussar

Going back to the stone ages, my uni gaming club had a con every year. It was only a few hundred. AFAIK it’s still going. 

But yeah, the overwhelming majority of cons are under the 1k mark.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Across North America there's maybe 20 big - as in 5-digit-or-close attendance figures, and widely-based appeal - conventions per year, and about a gajillion little ones most of which are either a broad-appeal con in a small or isolated centre or a limited-appeal con (e.g. for a single franchise or interest) in a bigger market.




Your count might be a bit low.

In Boston, we have Boston Comic Con that comes in at 40,000 and more, Anime Boston at 27,000+, and PAX East that draws in 100,000 people over the course of the weekend.

Let's try a quick list.  PAX West, Gen Con, Emerald City Comic Con, New York Comic Con, WonderCon, Chicago Conic and Entertainment Expo (C2E2), Dragon Con, Comikaze Expo, Wizard World Chicago, Anime Expo, San Diego Comic Con..

That's 14 without breaking a sweat, or looking beyond the third link on a google search for "geek conventions" (Your Search Results May Vary - YSRMV).

We also have Arisia, which is down at 4,500+.  I may be incorrect, but I think Arisia has it's convention volunteer safety people, and enhanced law enforcement presence over the weekend, but I don't think they hire professional outside security.  So that may be a thing for the over 10K attendees conventions.


----------



## Eltab

Elf Witch said:


> And you still have men who believe that it happens because -snip- there is booze and parties at some cons.



This claim can be empirically tested: two Cons.  
- AlphaCon allows drinking in/near the premises.  
- GammaCon has policy that public intoxication will get you shown the door, no return.
- Assume all other things (hours, attendance, harassment policy, enforcement, &c) are equal.

When the weekend is over, which Con had fewer reports of harassment?  Of AlphaCon's claims, in how many incidents was the harasser also drunk?  

I suspect that 'drunk' and 'harasser' correlate, but neither one _fully_ explains the other.  But if we can demonstrate that adding alcohol to the mix makes a bigger fire, then shut off the alcohol as part of putting the fire out.

"That's one small step..."


----------



## Hussar

But, that wouldn't prove anything.  Correlation does not mean causation.  After all, it's entirely possible that Alpha con doesn't necessarily actually have anyone going who would harass anyone.  Additionally, those that might be harassed, might avoid Alpha con specifically because it allows alcohol, resulting in lower rates of harassment.

After all, harassment occurs very often at work places.  Yet, there is (most likely) no alcohol being consumed during work hours.  If your point was actually true, then there should be little to no harassment occurring in work places.  

The issue isn't drinking, or cosplay girls being scantily dressed, or booth babes, or anything like that.  After all, those being harassed are often not any of those things.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Hussar said:


> Yet, there is (most likely) no alcohol being consumed during work hours.




And if there IS alcohol being consumed during work hours...um, where can I get an application form?


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> But, that wouldn't prove anything.  Correlation does not mean causation.  After all, it's entirely possible that Alpha con doesn't necessarily actually have anyone going who would harass anyone.  Additionally, those that might be harassed, might avoid Alpha con specifically because it allows alcohol, resulting in lower rates of harassment.




And don't confuse the rate of harassment with the _reported_ rate of harassment.



> The issue isn't drinking, or cosplay girls being scantily dressed, or booth babes, or anything like that.  After all, those being harassed are often not any of those things.




Fires are not *caused by* a lack of water pipes in the ceiling, but I'm going to guess you require the con hotel to have a sprinkler system.  "Fire suppression systems," they are called.

No, alcohol is not the root cause of harassment.  But, alcohol is very well known for its tendency to relieve people of their inhibitions - so that pretty much any stupid or negative behavior becomes more common when people have consumed alcohol.  If you're a guy who can't be a gentleman when drunk, you lose your right to party.  

Restricting alcohol can be seen as, "harassment suppression."  It doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to reduce the frequency and/or severity of issues.


----------



## Sunseeker

Umbran said:


> And don't confuse the rate of harassment with the _reported_ rate of harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> Fires are not *caused by* a lack of water pipes in the ceiling, but I'm going to guess you require the con hotel to have a sprinkler system.  "Fire suppression systems," they are called.
> 
> No, alcohol is not the root cause of harassment.  But, alcohol is very well known for its tendency to relieve people of their inhibitions - so that pretty much any stupid or negative behavior becomes more common when people have consumed alcohol.  If you're a guy who can't be a gentleman when drunk, you lose your right to party.
> 
> Restricting alcohol can be seen as, "harassment suppression."  It doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to reduce the frequency and/or severity of issues.




That, and as I recall, alcohol was the problem with whats-his-bucket from Frog God Games.  Sorry I'm terrible with names.

And at least one of the specific recounted stories by posters in this thread that named names was about someone with a similar problem.

And again there is plenty of non-convention based statistics that indicate rates of harassment (and other bad behaviour) increase dramatically in places where alcohol is served, and among alcoholics.  

So drawing a correlation between alcohol and harassment is not a hard one.

It comes down to this: what do people go to nerdy conventions for?
Liquor?  Or nerdy stuff? 
I'm going to assume its the latter, and that there are likely a multitude of venues for liquor outside of the convention.  So what, exactly, is lost if we were to remove alcohol from the equation?  The ability to get drunk while at a con?  Hardly a loss in my book.


----------



## Hussar

How many con's are serving alcohol at the con though?  In my experience, they don't exactly have bars serving in the con itself.  It's people either bringing alcohol, or going somewhere else and drinking - possibly the hotel bar, for example.

So, does that mean we cannot actually have con's at hotels?  Or anywhere else where liquor is available?  How is that even possible?  The example you cite, of what's his face from Frog God Games, wasn't drinking at the con, according to the story.  It was after hours at the hotel bar.  Never minding parties in hotel rooms or anything else like that.

I get the idea, but, I'm not sure how practical it actually is.

Granted, you could easily have policies on site where anyone who is noticeably intoxicated is removed.  I'm not sure how effective that would be, but, it might help.


----------



## S'mon

Hussar said:


> How many con's are serving alcohol at the con though?  In my experience, they don't exactly have bars serving in the con itself.




Here in England they definitely do.
OTOH I don't think I've ever seen a report of harassment from a convention here. So maybe US conventions need different rules for a different culture.


----------



## Bluenose

S'mon said:


> Here in England they definitely do.
> OTOH I don't think I've ever seen a report of harassment from a convention here. So maybe US conventions need different rules for a different culture.




There's a reason Dragonmeet has a harassment policy.


----------



## Guest 6801328

S'mon said:


> OTOH I don't think I've ever seen a report of harassment from a convention here.




Are you a Con organizer?  If not, then that's not a very meaningful data point.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> How many con's are serving alcohol at the con though?




The convention doesn't need to serve alcohol itself for alcohol to be part of the problem.  Many conventions have the concept of the "room party" - where convention goers hold parties (with or without alcohol).  These are sometimes used to promote things (like WorldCon bids), but often just for teh sake of having parties.  Often with alcohol.  Sometimes with lots of alcohol.  Usually, the con has a designation for the "party floor" of the hotel (with the expectation that if you are on the party floor, it is going to be loud late into the night), and those having parties can advertise on the flyer boards around the con, or with tickets that are handed out (or stacks of tickets are often left in elevator lobbies.

"Barfleet" is an organization that's into two things - Star Trek cosplay, and throwing parties with lots of alcohol.  At one convention some years back, they had so much alcohol, and so many alcohol problems, that the nearest hospital had to inform the convention that they could take no more of the alcohol poisoning cases they were generating.

So, yeah, alcohol gets served at cons, even if not *by* the con.



> So, does that mean we cannot actually have con's at hotels?  Or anywhere else where liquor is available?  How is that even possible?  The example you cite, of what's his face from Frog God Games, wasn't drinking at the con, according to the story.  It was after hours at the hotel bar.  Never minding parties in hotel rooms or anything else like that.




Reducing *convenient* access is probably effective. 

If a convention has an alcohol problem, eliminating the room party (by simple expedient of not having a "party floor", such that all noise complaints would alert the hotel and convention to crack down on them), would go a long way in reducing the drunkenness at most conventions.  

And, as you noted, conventions have policies.  If you can have an anti-harassment policy, you can also have an anti-drunkeness policy.  Get caught obviously drunk in public spaces of the con, lose your badge - at many cons that means you lose access to convention features - no panels, no dealer's room, no convention activities, and it is easy enough to implement.  If the con security staff gets called on you drunk, and *thwip*, there it goes!  

It wouldn't stop people from getting drunk in small numbers in their own rooms, but it would reduce the number of incidents in the public areas.


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> OTOH I don't think I've ever seen a report of harassment from a convention here.




Why would you expect to?  Do you think your favorite cons are going to hunt you down, and tell you straight up the number of harassment incidents they had last year?  Have you ever looked for reports on harassment?  Are you the person women who were harassed at the con would turn to to talk about it?  

This is one of the oldest defensive points for men.  "*I* didn't see it or know about it therefore it must hot happen!"  Because your personal experience counts as data?  A great many things go on in the world that you are not personally aware of.


----------



## S'mon

Umbran said:


> Why would you expect to?  Do you think your favorite cons are going to hunt you down, and tell you straight up the number of harassment incidents they had last year?  Have you ever looked for reports on harassment?  Are you the person women who were harassed at the con would turn to to talk about it?
> 
> This is one of the oldest defensive points for men.  "*I* didn't see it or know about it therefore it must hot happen!"  Because your personal experience counts as data?  A great many things go on in the world that you are not personally aware of.




You guys like to publicise stuff as in this very thread. I have no reason to believe you would not do the same for incidents in the UK.


----------



## Guest 6801328

S'mon said:


> You guys like to publicise stuff as in this very thread. I have no reason to believe you would not do the same for incidents in the UK.




Wait...are you saying that _every_, or even _most_, harassment incident at Cons ends up in a thread here?

Oh lord.

I suspect the incidents that get posted are the ones that involve "public figures" in the gaming world.  And even then it's only (by definition) the ones where somebody reports it _and_ that report becomes public.  And even then I doubt it's all of them.

The vast majority of incidents are not going to get reported _or_ involve a name gamers would recognize.


----------



## Sunseeker

Elfcrusher said:


> Wait...are you saying that _every_, or even _most_, harassment incident at Cons ends up in a thread here?
> 
> Oh lord.
> 
> I suspect the incidents that get posted are the ones that involve "public figures" in the gaming world.  And even then it's only (by definition) the ones where somebody reports it _and_ that report becomes public.  And even then I doubt it's all of them.
> 
> The vast majority of incidents are not going to get reported _or_ involve a name gamers would recognize.




It's true that most incidents go unreported, and that most of them probably aren't public figures, AND that the "normal" news media probably wouldn't pick up on them anyway, it's still worth asking that question:

Is the lack of news from Cons in the UK a sign of better handling?
-And if it is, what are they doing differently that American Cons could learn from?


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> You guys like to publicise stuff as in this very thread. I have no reason to believe you would not do the same for incidents in the UK.




"It isn't pushed in my face by someone else, so it must not happen."  Does that make sense to you?

A few notes:

Until rather recently, conventions did not have formal policies that made harassment a specific things one could report an incident of.  Twenty years ago, if a woman got groped in an elevator, there was nothing she could do about it.  Now, at some cons, there's a formal process for reporting such things.  However, conventions to *NOT* make a practice of telling the public how many incidents got reported.  Getting that information requires direct contact with convention staff who are willing to give you that information.  

When you get a specific report, it is of a high-profile case, where some geek-relevant industry bigwig gets outed as a jerk.  A lawyer can correct me if I am wrong, but British media has to deal with different libel laws than American media - specifically, in the US, in order to be guilty of a defamation crime it must be proven that the speaker *knew* the allegation to be false.  My understanding is that in Britain, the accused may sue, and if the reporting organization cannot *prove* the allegation is true, they are guilty of defamation.  So, when the law has different burdens of proof on making allegations public, reporting is apt to be much different - you won't hear about the gaming-famous British offenders, because the burden of proof needed to go to print about it is much higher. 

In addition, do you figure that only the famous people harass women?  Or, do you figure that some significant percentage of men do it, and only the famous ones become public knowledge?

Let us to five minutes of google research...

Feb. 2018 - One in five women in England are victims of sexual assault

Oct. 2017 - Half of British women victims of sexual harassment in the workplace

So, the men in those workplaces go to conventions.  Do you figure they fundamentally change their behavior when they go to a convention?  Or that being a geek is somehow _magical_ in Britain, that harassing men who are in your workplaces don't go to conventions?   Are you that special?  At cons, you are all nice boys and never do anything wrong?

Oh, and let us take this note and call it out specifically: _"Of the women who said they had been harassed, 63% said they didn't report it to anyone, and 79% of the male victims kept it to themselves"_.

Do you still figure you'd hear about it?

Log off now.  Drop a line to every woman you know who goes to conventions.  Ask them if they've ever experienced sexual harassment.


----------



## S'mon

Thanks for the reminder about libel laws Umbran - that's enough to explain it.

I do think there are cultural differences - eg we never had booth babes at RPG cons here - but I don't know if they affect the incidence of harrassment or not.


----------



## Eltab

Hussar said:


> I get the idea, but, I'm not sure how practical it actually is.



A 'Con-goer leaves the game tables a little early one evening, heads to the bar down the street, imbibes enough to feel it, wanders back to the hosting hotel, and makes a jerk of himself in the hotel part of the complex.

The Con can throw him out if he arrives in its part of the building, for public intoxication, or for anything he does that gets a complaint lodged against him while in the 'Con's part of the building.
The Con has no jurisdiction if he is a jerk outside the Con's area of the building or on the public sidewalk, &c.
But, behind the scenes, the Con organizers could ask Hotel Security to inform them of anybody they pick up who is associated with the Con (he had a reservation in one of the Con's block of rooms, say).  When the lout shows up at the Con again later, they know to keep an eye on him.

If you want to make it work, you can think out a way to make it work.  It took me just about 5 minutes to compose this post.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

S'mon said:


> Thanks for the reminder about libel laws Umbran - that's enough to explain it.
> 
> I do think there are cultural differences - eg we never had booth babes at RPG cons here - but I don't know if they affect the incidence of harrassment or not.




I really doubt that they would make much difference. It does not take many men at anything or anywhere to create an harassment problem as long as women feel that it is more trouble than it is worth to report it. It will continue.


----------



## Eltab

S'mon said:


> we never had booth babes at RPG cons here



I attended a con where one individual wore a chainmail bikini - not just preparing for the Costume Contest.  I had the good sense to keep a distance, bridle my tongue, and keep my hands at my sides.  I still stared some, though, because it was snowing outside, not warm inside (too much glass where walls should be) and I wondered how she avoided being covered in goose bumps.
I don't know what she thought of all the extra attention she got.


----------



## Lanefan

Eltab said:


> This claim can be empirically tested: two Cons.
> - AlphaCon allows drinking in/near the premises.
> - GammaCon has policy that public intoxication will get you shown the door, no return.
> - Assume all other things (hours, attendance, harassment policy, enforcement, &c) are equal.
> 
> When the weekend is over, which Con had fewer reports of harassment?  Of AlphaCon's claims, in how many incidents was the harasser also drunk?
> 
> I suspect that 'drunk' and 'harasser' correlate, but neither one _fully_ explains the other.  But if we can demonstrate that adding alcohol to the mix makes a bigger fire, then shut off the alcohol as part of putting the fire out.
> 
> "That's one small step..."



Unless the con is held in a "dry" city (which, though uncommon, do sort-of exist) this is a pointless exercise.

Even if the convention site itself is dry the con-goers - or certainly some of them - are still going to check out the city's nightlife, the hotel bar, the pub down the street, or that funny little fridge in their hotel room: it might sound strange to some, but not every attendee is there to game 24/7 - some are there to party with friends they only see each year at the con, for example.  Further, not every "event" is under the convention's control or even taking place during the convention's scheduled days - as exhibit A I give the pub crawl/tour* through Indy on the Tuesday night before each GenCon.

* - been on this a few times - grand fun!

Lan-"being a beer-and-chips gamer at home, convention games are perhaps the only ones I play completely sober"-efan


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Unless the con is held in a "dry" city (which, though uncommon, do sort-of exist) this is a pointless exercise.
> 
> Even if the convention site itself is dry the con-goers - or certainly some of them - are still going to check out the city's nightlife, the hotel bar, the pub down the street, or that funny little fridge in their hotel room




Not every hotel has alcohol in that funny little fridge in the hotel room.

And, for the rest, it really depends on the site.  One con in the Boston area happens in January.  Temperatures are typically in the teens or lower.  Its out by the waterfront, so it is windy, and it is about a half mile from anything but the hotel's bar, which sure as heck can't manage to serve the 4000+ who go to the convention.  Room parties are key to the drinker's life at the convention.

I think eliminating the room parties would have a major impact on the con - membership would probably drop precipitously, to be honest.  But doing so would drastically increase teh amount of effort needed to get drunk at the con, and would therefore probably reduce several kidns of incidents, harassment among them.



> it might sound strange to some, but not every attendee is there to game 24/7




This comes across as a tad condescending.  I suspect everyone is quite aware that people at cons will drink like fish if given the chance.  I think you overestimate how likely it is to happen if it isn't at a party at the con itself.


----------



## Hussar

How do you police room parties though?  Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room.  And, fair enough if all con's are in Boston, but, heck, the uni con I used to go to many years ago was on campus.  My campus (University of Western) had dorm on campus plus several bars and a decent sized night club.  

I get that policing the con itself is probably a good thing.  But, I'm not convinced that the con can really do much about what people do off site.  I really do think that education is the key here, more than trying to enforce rules that realistically, you can't.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> How do you police room parties though?  Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room.  And, fair enough if all con's are in Boston, but, heck, the uni con I used to go to many years ago was on campus.  My campus (University of Western) had dorm on campus plus several bars and a decent sized night club.
> 
> I get that policing the con itself is probably a good thing.  But, I'm not convinced that the con can really do much about what people do off site.  I really do think that education is the key here, more than trying to enforce rules that realistically, you can't.




Oh, they police room parties - at least to a degree. If the con's at the hotel, and con-goers are at the hotel, then pretty much any event the con-goers host will reflect on that con. Con security *will* respond to complaints about the room parties (at least they do in the cons I got to in Wisconsin). Realistically, they *have* too and they'll work with the hotel management, police, and emergency responders as best they can.

Obviously, stuff down the street and off the con site, there's little they affect. But room parties at the con site - they'll be policed as needed.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Not every hotel has alcohol in that funny little fridge in the hotel room.
> 
> And, for the rest, it really depends on the site.  One con in the Boston area happens in January.  Temperatures are typically in the teens or lower.  Its out by the waterfront, so it is windy, and it is about a half mile from anything but the hotel's bar, which sure as heck can't manage to serve the 4000+ who go to the convention.  Room parties are key to the drinker's life at the convention.



Perhaps true for cons held in a single hotel.  My experience is with GenCon and our local (once in a while) con here, both of which are run out of a dedicated convention centre rather than a hotel and whose attendees' accommodations are thus spread out over the town a bit.



> I think eliminating the room parties would have a major impact on the con - membership would probably drop precipitously, to be honest.  But doing so would drastically increase teh amount of effort needed to get drunk at the con, and would therefore probably reduce several kidns of incidents, harassment among them.



Membership dropping precipitously enough to kill the con outright is probably not the intended end result; so the question becomes one of - should such a policy be implemented - how much membership loss this con can absorb and still remain viable.

Lanefan


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> How do you police room parties though?  Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room.




It is possible that you could have a couple of people in your room for drinks, sure.  But you are not having *thirty* people in yoru room getting drunk - this is what a typicaly "room party" is like) - they will be too loud, and folks trying to sleep will call the front desk to have you shut up. Heck, that can happen with four people, if they happen to be rowdy drunks.


----------



## Riley37

Wild speculative theory here, no claim of expertise:

It might be useful, to add to the list of proscribed behaviors, "getting so intoxicated, that one neglects reasonable basic self care." If a participant is sloshing along the stairway so clumsily, that bystanders are worried that person will fall and get hurt, then at THAT point, the participant's personal choices are intrusive to others. There are equivalent levels of self-care deterioration for intoxicants other than alcohol.

Any further deterrence of drinking, however, becomes an attempt to police the personal choices of participants *for the sake of policing*, not for the sake of preventing consequences to others. Effort poured into that attempt, is effort which would be more useful if we put it directly into deterring sexual harassment.

 Let's focus on deterring behavior which an aggressor imposes onto an unwilling recipient. Let's focus on deterring *non-consensual* behavior. In order to clearly convey that focus, let's minimize grounds for confusing the Consent Patrol, with the Puritan Morality Patrol, who want to stop anyone from drinking *pro se*, and sexual behavior *pro se*, and dancing *pro se*, and gambling *pro se* (which means they're going to confiscate ALL THE DICE!).

For what it's worth, I personally don't get handsy, grabby, overbearing or loud when drunk. I understand that others do; but let me get drunk, and I'll just sit quietly and watch the world go by; if someone gets handsy, grabby, overbearing or unpleasantly loud, then deal with those *behaviors*, not the percentage of alcohol in their bloodstream.


----------



## Eltab

Lanefan said:


> Membership dropping precipitously enough to kill the con outright is probably not the intended end result; so the question becomes one of - should such a policy be implemented - how much membership loss this con can absorb and still remain viable.



On the other side, is people who will be more interested in showing up BECAUSE "drunks will be drunks" showed up and interfered with their fun at another Con, and the attendees want to just stay away from that happening all over again.
I don't have any data on how many people would leave / would come, though.  I will rough-guess that they would balance out - I'm not aware of people who HAVE to get drunk in order to enjoy themselves.


----------



## Lanefan

Eltab said:


> On the other side, is people who will be more interested in showing up BECAUSE "drunks will be drunks" showed up and interfered with their fun at another Con, and the attendees want to just stay away from that happening all over again.
> I don't have any data on how many people would leave / would come, though.  I will rough-guess that they would balance out - I'm not aware of people who HAVE to get drunk in order to enjoy themselves.





			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And, for the rest, it really depends on the site. One con in the Boston area happens in January. Temperatures are typically in the teens or lower. Its out by the waterfront, so it is windy, and it is about a half mile from anything but the hotel's bar, which sure as heck can't manage to serve the 4000+ who go to the convention. Room parties are key to the drinker's life at the convention.
> 
> I think eliminating the room parties would have a major impact on the con - membership would probably drop precipitously, to be honest. But doing so would drastically increase teh amount of effort needed to get drunk at the con, and would therefore probably reduce several kidns of incidents, harassment among them.



I was speaking of this speculation as posted by Umbran regarding a single-hotel-based con that it seems he's familiar with.


----------



## jimtillman

shidaku said:


> That, and as I recall, alcohol was the problem with whats-his-bucket from Frog God Games.  Sorry I'm terrible with names.
> 
> And at least one of the specific recounted stories by posters in this thread that named names was about someone with a similar problem.
> 
> And again there is plenty of non-convention based statistics that indicate rates of harassment (and other bad behaviour) increase dramatically in places where alcohol is served, and among alcoholics.
> 
> So drawing a correlation between alcohol and harassment is not a hard one.
> 
> It comes down to this: what do people go to nerdy conventions for?
> Liquor?  Or nerdy stuff?
> I'm going to assume its the latter, and that there are likely a multitude of venues for liquor outside of the convention.  So what, exactly, is lost if we were to remove alcohol from the equation?  The ability to get drunk while at a con?  Hardly a loss in my book.





depends on the con people go to different cons for different things
gencon for example is a gaming con and most people are there to play games

while dragoncon is largely known for partying.

rules against drinking in the gencon convention hall would likely not be an issue with the vast majority of attenders,.

but banning drinks from dragoncon would piss a lot of people off.


----------



## Catulle

The extended segue into "what if" territory about drinking seems to me to be something that may be addressed by taking a strong and explicit policy stance against any kind of mitigation related to it (c.f. Bill Webb, as referenced above) and thereby catch harassment and general anti-social behaviour under the same auspices.


----------



## Sunseeker

jimtillman said:


> depends on the con people go to different cons for different things
> gencon for example is a gaming con and most people are there to play games
> 
> while dragoncon is largely known for partying.
> 
> rules against drinking in the gencon convention hall would likely not be an issue with the vast majority of attenders,.
> 
> but banning drinks from dragoncon would piss a lot of people off.




These aren't, for obvious reasons, universal rules.  But if other cons banned alcohol and saw a drop in harassment reports, and Dragoncon didn't, then either its reputation as a "party con" would grow, or it would start to pick up other, not-so-nice reputations.

In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.

We want to reduce harassment.  Harassment is a type of _behaviour_, so what we want to do is police _behaviour_ while at a con.  Drinking is incidental in this case as people who are likely to harass while drunk are probably also people who would harass while sober, if maybe they would be less obvious about it.  Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be _obviously_ harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it.  People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.




It's almost as if there are men who don't want this conversation to happen! Some of them charge in shouting "FEMINAZIS!" and get banned, while others are more subtle and play the long game.



shidaku said:


> Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be _obviously_ harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it.  People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.




Yup. Nailed it. Alcohol makes certain dynamics and motivations more *visible*.

See also, guys who don't use certain words when sober. Drunk or sober, they're *thinking* in the categories of those words; this person is a $%&#, that person is a *%&#. Then when they're drunk, they start openly saying what they're thinking... and they expect us to pretend that alcohol is the problem.


----------



## jimtillman

shidaku said:


> These aren't, for obvious reasons, universal rules.  But if other cons banned alcohol and saw a drop in harassment reports, and Dragoncon didn't, then either its reputation as a "party con" would grow, or it would start to pick up other, not-so-nice reputations.
> 
> In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.
> 
> We want to reduce harassment.  Harassment is a type of _behaviour_, so what we want to do is police _behaviour_ while at a con.  Drinking is incidental in this case as people who are likely to harass while drunk are probably also people who would harass while sober, if maybe they would be less obvious about it.  Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be _obviously_ harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it.  People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.





while i do agree that the more aggressive harassers  are usually  like that  sober or not,
the same is not in my experience true of the average person that goes to far in hitting on people and does nto take no for an answer 
i know a ton of people that are very polite and reserved normally, even shy
 but get few drinks in them and they get handsie as hell


----------



## Sunseeker

jimtillman said:


> while i do agree that the more aggressive harassers  are usually  like that  sober or not,
> the same is not in my experience true of the average person that goes to far in hitting on people and does nto take no for an answer
> i know a ton of people that are very polite and reserved normally, even shy
> but get few drinks in them and they get handsie as hell




As [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] points out, the problem with those "tons of people" is that they are still thinking all the same same thoughts harassers are, they're just better at keeping a lid on them when sober.  And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are _bad things_.  The problem remains that _they're still thinking them_.  

Alcohol doesn't make these people handsy.  It just makes it harder for them to control their handsy behaviour.


----------



## jimtillman

Riley37 said:


> It's almost as if there are men who don't want this conversation to happen! Some of them charge in shouting "FEMINAZIS!" and get banned, while others are more subtle and play the long game.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Nailed it. Alcohol makes certain dynamics and motivations more *visible*.
> 
> See also, guys who don't use certain words when sober. Drunk or sober, they're *thinking* in the categories of those words; this person is a $%&#, that person is a *%&#. Then when they're drunk, they start openly saying what they're thinking... and they expect us to pretend that alcohol is the problem.





while it is of course entirely true that there are plenty of jerks that harass woman while sober.
a lot of incidents  and i would argue probably  majority of harassment that happens  at cons and parties  involve alcohol. 
 there are plenty of normally polite non aggressive people who yes might think about how much they want to sleep with , that's called being human and there is nothing wrong with wanting to screw people nor for that matter with asking people out, as long as you can take no for an answer.
 but get a few drinks in them and they lose there fears and inhibitions and they act in ways that they would not act if they were sober,
 drugs and alcohol reduce inhibitions that's a simple fact ,
from a practical point it does not matter what a person thinks  , what matters is what they do .
  now there being drunk is not  an excuse for there bad behavior  , people are responsible for how they handle there booze.
but it is something to keep in mind.
a drunk dude is likely  not care about a harassment policy  and many a sexual assault happens when a sexual predator they find a drunk woman that is not able to give consent.
this makes it important to know how to keep an eye out for people around you that are drunk and acting in inappropriate ways, to get the word out when people that are known to be a problem when drunk are going to be at a con and to inform the con if you believe that person to be a potential problem.


----------



## jimtillman

shidaku said:


> As [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] points out, the problem with those "tons of people" is that they are still thinking all the same same thoughts harassers are, they're just better at keeping a lid on them when sober.  And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are _bad things_.  The problem remains that _they're still thinking them_.
> 
> Alcohol doesn't make these people handsy.  It just makes it harder for them to control their handsy behaviour.




pretty much everyone has dark thoughts upon occasion  , that's normal
what matters is the actions that people take.

also harasser is not some blanket category
it ranges from a person that asks a person out a few times when its not wanted all the way to 
to serial rapists.

and how harassers are dealt with needs to  vary with the severity  of the issue


----------



## Sunseeker

jimtillman said:


> pretty much everyone has dark thoughts upon occasion  , that's normal
> what matters is the actions that people take.
> 
> also harasser is not some blanket category
> it ranges from a person that asks a person out a few times when its not wanted all the way to
> to serial rapists.
> 
> and how harassers are dealt with needs to  vary with the severity  of the issue




And none of that is relevant to the conversation.

Thoughts become action, here's a video, it's on racism, but just replace every time he says "racism" with "sexual harassment" and the point remains the same.  
[video=youtube;g9n_UPyVR5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9n_UPyVR5s[/video]

When you chuckle at a sexist joke.  When you oogle at a woman a little too often.  When you don't actively stand up when someone else commits harassment.  These are the things that "thoughts" enable us to do.  Those bad thoughts need to be policed just as much as bad actions, because bad thoughts always lead to bad actions, drunk or sober.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> As [MENTION=6786839]And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are _bad things_.  The problem remains that _they're still thinking them_.




True, but beware slippery slope. I have bad things in my mind too. I have made a categorical choice not to act on those bad things. No matter what fantasies I have about that cute/hot Princess Daphne cosplayer , I still recognize her as a *person*. My inhibition, against treating a person as a target for predatory behavior, is so deep in my personality that alcohol cannot dissolve that inhibition. (Apparently some men have inhibitions on a more soluble basis.)

So if the con had to act on the basis of what I was *thinking*, then the con would have to boot me. As long as the con limits its enforced policy to behavior which affects others, however, I will not show up on their Anti-Predator Radar.

If the woman in the Princess Daphne cosplay can sense my thoughts, just from subtle cues, then she might choose to avoid me. That's fine; I will not pursue, and she will find it easy to avoid me. The guy who *insists* on sitting next to her, is more of a problem. If he continues to pursue further contact, then sooner or later she might tell him to back off, or perhaps bystanders will advise him to back off. If those measures fail, then the con policy, enforced by con staff, is the next level of recourse.


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> True, but beware slippery slope. I have bad things in my mind too. I have made a categorical choice not to act on those bad things. No matter what fantasies I have about that cute/hot Princess Daphne cosplayer , I still recognize her as a *person*. My inhibition, against treating a person as a target for predatory behavior, is so deep in my personality that alcohol cannot dissolve that inhibition. (Apparently some men have inhibitions on a more soluble basis.)
> 
> So if the con had to act on the basis of what I was *thinking*, then the con would have to boot me. As long as the con limits its enforced policy to behavior which affects others, however, I will not show up on their Anti-Predator Radar.
> 
> If the woman in the Princess Daphne cosplay can sense my thoughts, just from subtle cues, then she might choose to avoid me. That's fine; I will not pursue, and she will find it easy to avoid me. The guy who *insists* on sitting next to her, is more of a problem. If he continues to pursue further contact, then sooner or later she might tell him to back off, or perhaps bystanders will advise him to back off. If those measures fail, then the con policy, enforced by con staff, is the next level of recourse.




And I'm not arguing that.  

What I'm getting at is that fundamentally we have to address what we _think_ as much as what we _do_.  Because what we _think_ inevitably bleeds into what we _do_.  Even if we're really good at limiting that bleed, it's always there.  

When my dad taught me how to drive, he told me "the car goes where your eyes go".  And its true, because consciously or not, your body follows your eyes.  When your body follows your eyes, your arms turn the wheel and inevitably, the car goes where your eyes go.  

For some people, there may be more delay between when the car follows your eyes.  The only way you can keep the car from going where it shouldn't is to keep your eyes on the road.  

These sorts of things aren't always conscious, that's why we have to address what's in our heads, as much as our actions.  If we're good at addressing our actions, then we need to move on to the next step.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> These sorts of things aren't always conscious, that's why we have to address what's in our heads, as much as our actions.  If we're good at addressing our actions, then we need to move on to the next step.




Ah. Insofar as "we" means "the people trying to do more good and less harm, with an awareness of power differentials", then yes, I agree. Those who are, at least, trying; with imperfect, mortal levels of success.

Insofar as "we" means "the gaming con community as a whole", well, that's a different "we". That "we" includes many who are not trying. That "we" includes some people who are less interested in self-improvement, and more interested in what they can get away with, or how trashed they can get on alcohol (because somehow that's more fun at a con, than it would be alone at home?), or how many "swings at bat" they can take as a pick-up artist.


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> Ah. Insofar as "we" means "the people trying to do more good and less harm, with an awareness of power differentials", then yes, I agree. Those who are, at least, trying; with imperfect, mortal levels of success.
> 
> Insofar as "we" means "the gaming con community as a whole", well, that's a different "we". That "we" includes many who are not trying. That "we" includes some people who are less interested in self-improvement, and more interested in what they can get away with, or how trashed they can get on alcohol (because somehow that's more fun at a con, than it would be alone at home?), or how many "swings at bat" they can take as a pick-up artist.




Well yes, obviously the people who don't care are ya know, the problem.  It's on the rest of us to deal with that.


----------



## Umbran

Riley37 said:


> It's almost as if there are men who don't want this conversation to happen! Some of them charge in shouting "FEMINAZIS!" and get banned, while others are more subtle and play the long game.





Please do not blame on malice what can be easily explained by normal thread topic drift.  If you hadn't noticed, the thread is very, very long.  Some deviation from the core topic is inevitable.


----------



## Umbran

shidaku said:


> As [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] points out, the problem with those "tons of people" is that they are still thinking all the same same thoughts harassers are, they're just better at keeping a lid on them when sober.




Are either you or Riley37 a mental health professional?  Because what you are saying here is, by my understanding, a common misconception.

Specifically - anyone who is not asexual has thoughts of sexual desire.  There's nothing abnormal or unhealthy about it.  Partaking of alcohol then removes some of the inhibitions we normally feel - we care less or not at all about what others will think of our actions.  But this *does not* necessarily mean the person was considering (even subconsciously) the same type of actions when sober.  Sometimes, they do.  But in many, inhibition can and does act *before* the formation of a plan of action.


----------



## Riley37

Umbran said:


> Because what you are saying here is, by my understanding, a common misconception.




Shidaku and I might disagree on details of mental process. I am not a professional, and have only an amateur understanding of psychology and of cognitive science. So far as I know, mental processes are complicated, and many generalizations and simplifications fall apart under close scrutiny, or apply usefully under some assumptions and in some domains, but not in other domains. I mean, it's hard to take apart a Swiss army knife, when the only tool you can use, is that Swiss army knife; and it's hard to understand the human mind, using only the human mind.

I say, and AFAIK Shidaku says, that in some cases, there are people who have (a) desire, (b) willingness to pursue desire even if it's not fully reciprocal, (c) a way of doing so smoothly while sober, and (d) a way of doing so less smoothly while intoxicated. In SOME of those cases, the person's behavior while drunk reveals unflattering aspects of their behavior while sober. ("See? Before, he was just trying to monopolize conversation with me. Now that he's drunk, he's literally humping my leg." - "Yeah, you're right. I thought it was harmless, but now I see what you mean. Do you want my help in getting him to stop?")

Other cases exist: for example, the person who lacks the ruthlessness of (b), but who gets confused while drunk and cannot accurately assess reciprocation. This person's behavior while sober is probably fine, and their behavior while drunk is probably correctable. ("Bro, take my word for it, I'm sure she's not into you." - "Awwww, damn. (hic) Okay. I'll find someone else.")



Umbran said:


> But in many, inhibition can and does act *before* the formation of a plan of action.




Indeed. I've experienced that; noticed a thought, decided I didn't wanna go there, and nipped plan-formation in the bud. In many ways, not just behavior relevant to the thread's topic.

Alternately, one might have a habit which only emerges while drunk. And one might have voluntary control about averting the habit pathway, sooner or later along the path. "Do I wanna take this second drink? Would I still want to take this second drink, even if I weren't trying to get her to drink along with me? If she joins me in the drink, but doesn't come back to my room, will I be able to handle that maturely? Maybe I'll take the drink, but I'll also make my backup plan for gracefully disengaging *now*, while I'm still thinking clearly."

There's also the case of the person who (a) feels desire, (b) checks for reciprocation, (c) SIGNS POINT TO YES, (d) he's still uncomfortable or hesitant, maybe "once bitten twice shy" about rejection, and (d) he uses a drink or two to disengage a *non-necessary, non-situationally-appropriate* inhibition, with the outcome of (e) a happy hook-up for both parties, followed by sleeping spooned and a wonderful breakfast the next day. (Bonus points, IMO, if risk management was still applied, for STIs and, if relevant, conception.)

Those are a few scenarios, out of many, many existing cases and possible cases.

I am more interested in how we can *directly* deter harassment, than in the question of con policies on alcohol. Harassment could still be an issue even if the con happens on a space station, and there's no alcohol anywhere on the space station, and no convenient way to go get some.


----------



## Hussar

jimtillman said:


> /snip
> .
> a lot of incidents  and i would argue probably  majority of harassment that happens  at cons and parties  involve alcohol.
> 
> :snip




Based on what?


----------



## Bagpuss

shidaku said:


> Is the lack of news from Cons in the UK a sign of better handling?
> -And if it is, what are they doing differently that American Cons could learn from?




One factor that might play in is that most Con's in the UK are significantly smaller than most US Con's where you hear of harassment. There less or no "anonymity of the crowd" at play, which could be a factor.

As for a "dry Con" idea, most of the Con's I've been to in the UK pay GM's in "Beer Tokens" (drinks tokens that can be used at the bar), I don't drink myself but the idea of a dry Con just seems weird.


----------



## Bagpuss

Bluenose said:


> There's a reason Dragonmeet has a harassment policy.




To be fair most Con's nowadays have a harassment policy, it's just the done thing to do, that way if something occurs you have a policy to point to. Anyone starting a convention should have a harassment policy in place, just like they should show people where the fire exits are. 

Having a policy doesn't point to it happening (ie: you needed to introduce a policy because of an incident), or not happening because you have a policy (which every suddenly obeys because it exists).

Unless you happen to know of an incident that prompted Dragonmeet to introduce the policy? The intro to their policy said they were introducing in response to reports at other conventions.


----------



## Guest 6801328

This is slightly off-topic, and certainly not an opinion informed by clinical expertise, but whereas a lot of people will excuse behavior due to intoxication..."Yeah, but he was drunk.  He's really not a bad guy"...my belief has always been that alcohol brings out our true selves.  It suppresses our inhibitions.  

A drunken @$$hole is likely just an @$$hole who manages to pretend otherwise when he (or she) is not drunk.


----------



## Eltab

I should have set up a stopwatch.
Suggest a way to avoid an early-warning behavior of a problem, and eventually hear the objection, "But that would put a crimp in MY style!  How dare you lump me in with them."

Full Disclosure: I have never been drunk in my life; alcohol makes me sick to my stomach first.  So a 'No Alcohol; No Intoxication' policy will not harm me in the least.

I was reminded by a comment above, that drunk women make poor choices that _they_ regret in the morning, too.
A dry 'Con reduces the problem from both sides of the interaction.


----------



## Bagpuss

Eltab said:


> Full Disclosure: I have never been drunk in my life; alcohol makes me sick to my stomach first.  So a 'No Alcohol; No Intoxication' policy will not harm me in the least.
> 
> I was reminded by a comment above, that drunk women make poor choices that _they_ regret in the morning, too.
> A dry 'Con reduces the problem from both sides of the interaction.




It's very easy for someone that doesn't drink to suggest a "dry con", and while indeed it would reduce the small number of alcohol related incidents, it would also reduce the enjoyment it for the vast majority that drink responsibly without incident. I'm suspect some Cons might want to go that route, but I don't think it is an answer for every Con.


----------



## Sadras

Eltab said:


> Full Disclosure: I have never been drunk in my life; alcohol makes me sick to my stomach first.  So a 'No Alcohol; No Intoxication' policy will not harm me in the least.




I'm not a drinker by any means, but I would find such a policy draconian.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Across North America there's maybe 20 big - as in 5-digit-or-close attendance figures, and widely-based appeal - conventions per year, and about a gajillion little ones most of which are either a broad-appeal con in a small or isolated centre or a limited-appeal con (e.g. for a single franchise or interest) in a bigger market.




The three in Los Angeles hit like 2000+ and these are well known cons(been going strong since the 1980's), in one of the largest cities.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Sadras said:


> I'm not a drinker by any means, but I would find such a policy draconian.




I am not a drinker either, and yes alcohol can contribute to the problem. It all ready makes it worse for women in this way. Anytime we go somewhere alcohol is served, parties, bars, Cons, whatever, if we are assaulted we are first asked "Why did you go there if you knew there was drinking?" Case in point, the Stanford Rapist, got 6 months in jail, the woman was unconscious. the rapist was caught IN THE ACT. And she still had to answer questions about why SHE went to a frat party where she knew there would be drinking.
We have always blamed the victim for drinking, and until that stops women will minimize their participation in such events.


----------



## Bagpuss

It would not only be draconian, but puritanical and unnecessary.


----------



## Sadras

Jeanneliza said:


> I am not a drinker either, and yes alcohol can contribute to the problem. It all ready makes it worse for women in this way. Anytime we go somewhere alcohol is served, parties, bars, Cons, whatever, if we are assaulted we are first asked "Why did you go there if you knew there was drinking?" Case in point, the Stanford Rapist, got 6 months in jail, the woman was unconscious. the rapist was caught IN THE ACT. And she still had to answer questions about why SHE went to a frat party where she knew there would be drinking.
> We have always blamed the victim for drinking, and until that stops women will minimize their participation in such events.




I do not know the details of that instance other than from your post, but I find that a gross injustice just from what you have posted.
I'm not saying alcohol doesn't contribute to the problem, but like a poster mentioned earlier sexual harassment happens at work, despite the lack of alcohol availability. Where do we draw the line? 
Would you say Cosplay contributes to the problem? Do we ban Cosplay? 
Perhaps they should have different days for men and women visitors?
Sharia Law?

As a person who is not a drinker, I dislike liberties being taken away even if I do not make use them.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Sadras said:


> I do not know the details of that instance other than from your post, but I find that a gross injustice just from what you have posted.
> I'm not saying alcohol doesn't contribute to the problem, but like a poster mentioned earlier sexual harassment happens at work, despite the lack of alcohol availability. Where do we draw the line?
> Would you say Cosplay contributes to the problem? Do we ban Cosplay?
> Perhaps they should have different days for men and women visitors?
> Sharia Law?
> 
> As a person who is not a drinker, I dislike liberties being taken away even if I do not make use them.




We all ready know Prohibition doesn't work. My wording was poor, as a society we need to address victim blaming. AT all levels.


----------



## Sunseeker

Umbran said:


> Are either you or Riley37 a mental health professional?  Because what you are saying here is, by my understanding, a common misconception.
> 
> Specifically - anyone who is not asexual has thoughts of sexual desire.  There's nothing abnormal or unhealthy about it.  Partaking of alcohol then removes some of the inhibitions we normally feel - we care less or not at all about what others will think of our actions.  But this *does not* necessarily mean the person was considering (even subconsciously) the same type of actions when sober.  Sometimes, they do.  But in many, inhibition can and does act *before* the formation of a plan of action.




Sorry, I'm not buying the "I'm really a good guy I just turn into a freak when I get drunk."  Me being a metal health professional or not has no bearing on rejecting that argument.  If the "sober you" and the "drunk you" are such different people, and the "drunk you" is a sexual harasser, then perhaps _you shouldn't drink_.  The fact that you are not entirely in control of your faculties is on YOU, noone forced you to drink, noone forced you to get drunk.  (there is a line here by the way, between drinking and getting drunk)  You effectively CHOSE to become that sexual harasser by drinking, a person you likely knew you've become before when you get drunk.  

So guess what?  It's still you, and its still your fault.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bagpuss

lowkey13 said:


> Finally, I would add that I really hope that anyone who has participated in this conversation put the same amount of effort to finding out where there local gaming convention is this year (or next) and ... helping out. Theoretical angry discussions are one things, actual change is better.




I'll bring the beers... is that not what you meant?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Eltab

Sadras said:


> Would you say Cosplay contributes to the problem? Do we ban Cosplay?



Does Cosplay involve more than a costume contest?  (asking for information.)
If there were a stage provided for participants to re-enact favorite scenes, it would be reasonable to ask a non-Cosplay-attired person to stay back from the stage.

Which indirectly raises the protection offered to the Cosplayers: if somebody wants to get handsy on one, he has to buy a costume first (so he can get up close without raising suspicions).


----------



## Eltab

Bagpuss said:


> It's very easy for someone that doesn't drink to suggest a "dry con", and while indeed it would reduce the small number of alcohol related incidents, it would also reduce the enjoyment it for the vast majority that drink responsibly without incident. I'm suspect some Cons might want to go that route, but I don't think it is an answer for every Con.



Fair enough.  I suggested GammaCon's alcohol policy as an alternative, to test a hypothesis in IRL behavior; not as The Only True Way.

re: "small number"  The point of the original experiment is to get data on the number and proportion of incidents that involve drinking.  I don't know if it is 'large' or 'small'.  Do you have a source?


----------



## Sadras

Eltab said:


> Does Cosplay involve more than a costume contest?  (asking for information.)
> If there were a stage provided for participants to re-enact favorite scenes, it would be reasonable to ask a non-Cosplay-attired person to stay back from the stage.
> 
> Which indirectly raises the protection offered to the Cosplayers: if somebody wants to get handsy on one, he has to buy a costume first (so he can get up close without raising suspicions).




I'd imagine cosplayers do not only wear their outfits on stage but also within the general convention, eateries and lounges. They become easy targets for predators.


----------



## Eltab

jimtillman said:


> from a practical point it does not matter what a person thinks  , what matters is what they do .



This is most certainly true.

And until somebody can figure out how to cast _Read Thoughts_ IRL, threatening people over the thoughts they may / may not be thinking, is a distraction to the goal: a safe fun convention experience for all.


----------



## Umbran

Eltab said:


> Does Cosplay involve more than a costume contest?  (asking for information.)
> If there were a stage provided for participants to re-enact favorite scenes, it would be reasonable to ask a non-Cosplay-attired person to stay back from the stage.




Cosplay for some includes a masquerade/constume contest.  But overall, cosplay is really just dressing up in some costume at the con.  So, yes, it happens all over the place.  Some dress up and hang around in the major public areas to be seen, others dress up and go about hteir normal conventin business in costume.


----------



## Bagpuss

Eltab said:


> re: "small number"  The point of the original experiment is to get data on the number and proportion of incidents that involve drinking.  I don't know if it is 'large' or 'small'.  Do you have a source?




By small I mean the number of incidents over all are small, even if alcohol was involved in all of them it would still be small. Compared to the number of people at a convention or drinking at a convention.


----------



## Umbran

Bagpuss said:


> By small I mean the number of incidents over all are small, even if alcohol was involved in all of them it would still be small. Compared to the number of people at a convention or drinking at a convention.




Are you sure the number of incidents is "small"?  And what qualifies as "small"?  5 incidents that call for intervention by conventiuon staff?  5% of the convention being involved in an incident?  What is acceptable?

Two years ago, at a con of 4000+ people, on Saturday night I personally witnessed three separate alcohol related issues that required convention staff intervention.   It is possible I saw all the alcohol-related problems at the convention, but statistically, that's not the way to bet.


----------



## Eltab

Bagpuss said:


> By small I mean the number of incidents over all are small, *even if alcohol was involved in all of them* it would still be small. Compared to the number of people at a convention or drinking at a convention.



Bolded for emphasis.

If you are right, then a dry Con would eliminate the incidents entirely.    Progress!
(Would that it _were_ that simple.)


----------



## billd91

Sadras said:


> I'd imagine cosplayers do not only wear their outfits on stage but also within the general convention, eateries and lounges. They become easy targets for predators.




Indeed they do. My daughter and her friends wear their costumes about the con, in their events and panels, in the bathrooms, in the hallways, and even in the connected mall's food court. And that is their *absolute right* to do so unmolested by asshats - easy targets or not.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> None of this has to do with issues of casual misogyny and sexism, or harassment that can occur in the absence of alcohol. Those are also issues and can be addressed separately from alcohol.




So we address them separately AND we address the interaction with alcohol? In parallel? I agree.



lowkey13 said:


> It's relatively easy to whiteroom theory how conventions should change, just like it's easy to say, "Men need to stop harassing." Great. What's a little harder is making that change.




I agree... again... that's twice on the same page!

I will spend Memorial Day Weekend at Local Gaming Con. I intend to mainly observe, and ponder what I see in light of this thread. In chat with fellow participants, I may raise questions on the issue, both to gather perspectives and to bring attention to the topic. If occasion arises, I will step up, to the best of my ability. I have no particular influence, since I'm not a multi-year regular at KublaCon, but I appreciate your encouragement.

If I run into the guy from my Friendly Local Game Store, the one whose PC sought to impregnate as many NPCs as possible, to the extent of "captured bandits can escape execution if they're female and they'll have sex with me", then... well, I have no authority over him, but I'll pay attention to whether he games with women.


----------



## Bagpuss

Eltab said:


> Bolded for emphasis.
> 
> If you are right, then a dry Con would eliminate the incidents entirely.    Progress!
> (Would that it _were_ that simple.)




No just because all incidents involved alcohol wouldn't prove it was the cause. So yes it isn't that simple, besides why should everyone suffer because of a handful of people that can't handle their drink. Punish the guilty not the innocent.


----------



## Bagpuss

Umbran said:


> Are you sure the number of incidents is "small"?  And what qualifies as "small"?  5 incidents that call for intervention by convention staff?  5% of the convention being involved in an incident?  What is acceptable?




Zero is acceptable, but considering the number of cons and people attending across the globe the number of incidents that have been reported are statistically very small, less than 1%, even if we were to accept massive under reporting it would still probably be less than 5% (per person/con attended).



> Two years ago, at a con of 4000+ people, on Saturday night I personally witnessed three separate alcohol related issues that required convention staff intervention.   It is possible I saw all the alcohol-related problems at the convention, but statistically, that's not the way to bet.




No but even if you only saw 20th of the incidents, it doesn't even get to 2%, the vast majority of people don't cause incidents with or without alcohol.


----------



## Sadras

billd91 said:


> Indeed they do. My daughter and her friends wear their costumes about the con, in their events and panels, in the bathrooms, in the hallways, and even in the connected mall's food court. And that is their *absolute right* to do so unmolested by asshats - easy targets or not.




Was just discussing a tinder date (1st) a girl friend of mine recently went on with someone who made it obvious he was there for the immediate hookup and nothing else. Despite all the signals she had given him that she was not interested in a booty call, he still kept encroaching on her space and touching her leg etc. Anyways, he leaned for a kiss and that's when she burped. Purposefully.

She had also eaten loads of garlic. Again purposefully. 

EDIT: Surprisingly it did not deter him.


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> why should everyone suffer because of a handful of people that can't handle their drink. Punish the guilty not the innocent.




I remember that argument from somewhere...

Some of live in jurisdictions in which judges shrug and say "accidents happen" after someone gets sloshed and crashes their sports car into a school bus. Some of us live in zero-tolerance jurisdictions, where a cop will pull you over just for weaving back and forth in the lane, and if the cop finds that you're drunk, you can lose your license or be imprisoned. Some of us live in jurisdictions where cops hold checkpoints for alcohol testing. (On one hand, that goes too far, because selective enforcement; on another hand, it saves lives.)

Who here lives in a place where cops and judges got serious about enforcing the laws against drinking and driving, and wants to return to the days of "it's up to each driver to handle their drink"?

I have already posted that I, personally, am a quiet drunk. If anything, I'm less likely to say something unwanted and thus offensive, while drunk, because I'm less likely to say *anything*. I've already posted that I want the primary focus on addressing harassment *as such* rather than addressing it via any change to alcohol policy.

But the moment some guy argues that HE should not have to give up anything, because it's not HIS problem, that flips me over to the side of "I will give up whatever it takes, to make cons safer for those who are currently targets of harassment". If the people saying "harassment isn't really a problem" overlap with the people saying "don't change the role of alcohol at cons" then I know what side I'm NOT on.


----------



## Sadras

I'm wondering if there are any people still remaining within this thread which say that harassment isn't a problem?


----------



## Sunseeker

Sadras said:


> I'm wondering if there are any people still remaining within this thread which say that harassment isn't a problem?




I doubt anyone is going to come in here and outright say as much.

But there will be plenty of posts about how "Oh they were just drunk, it's not who they really are."
or "How else do you expect them to get a girlfriend?"
or "But they're so well behaved at the office!"
or "Those girls in skimpy cosplay are easy targets for predators."
or "The number of incidents that have been reported are statistically very small, less than 1%."

Noone says sexual harassment _isn't_ a problem.  A lot of people will say sexual harassment really isn't as big a deal as those crazy chicks make it out to be.


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> I doubt anyone is going to come in here and outright say as much.
> 
> But there will be plenty of posts about how
> ...(snip)...
> "Those girls in skimpy cosplay are easy targets for predators."




I'm assuming this was meant for me (not that I used the word skimpy). There was nothing sinister meant in that comment. It is not hard to imagine that predators would target cosplayers.

Upthread posters were discussing various ideas that could be done at cons to decrease sexual harassment and make people more aware. One of those ideas were catchy posters/pamphlets. I believe [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned _Cosplay does not mean Consent_ which everyone thought was a pretty decent catch-phrase.


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> I remember that argument from somewhere...
> 
> Some of live in jurisdictions in which judges shrug and say "accidents happen" after someone gets sloshed and crashes their sports car into a school bus. Some of us live in zero-tolerance jurisdictions, where a cop will pull you over just for weaving back and forth in the lane, and if the cop finds that you're drunk, you can lose your license or be imprisoned. Some of us live in jurisdictions where cops hold checkpoints for alcohol testing. (On one hand, that goes too far, because selective enforcement; on another hand, it saves lives.)
> 
> Who here lives in a place where cops and judges got serious about enforcing the laws against drinking and driving, and wants to return to the days of "it's up to each driver to handle their drink"?




And in none of those examples did they reintroduce prohibition. I'm all for throwing people out of Cons that act inappropriately, or refusing to serve people that have had too much. That's punishing the guilty, nowhere did I say action shouldn't be taken.



> But the moment some guy argues that HE should not have to give up anything, because it's not HIS problem, that flips me over to the side of "I will give up whatever it takes, to make cons safer for those who are currently targets of harassment". If the people saying "harassment isn't really a problem" overlap with the people saying "don't change the role of alcohol at cons" then I know what side I'm NOT on.




I wouldn't be giving up anything I'm tea-total. But really women don't enjoy a drink either? It's not a case of not being my problem, harassment at Cons is a problem for everyone, but draconian solutions that remove an aspect a wide number of people enjoy aren't a proportionate response. You might as well say lets ban D&D as a high proportion of harassaser at RPG conventions appear to play D&D, or ban all men as there seems to be a strong correlation between being male and harassment of women (lets just ignore the fact the vast majority of D&D players and men don't harass people). 



shidaku said:


> I doubt anyone is going to come in here and outright say as much.
> 
> or "The number of incidents that have been reported are statistically very small, less than 1%."
> 
> Noone says sexual harassment _isn't_ a problem.  A lot of people will say sexual harassment really isn't as big a deal as those crazy chicks make it out to be.




No one is saying "chicks be crazy" there is a danger however in over stating a problem as it will make it seem like all Conventions are hostile spaces for women. Which will make it less likely women will attend, making it less inclusive which is the opposite of what we want to achieve.

Having clear and robust and well publicised policies and enforcement of those policies is the best solution.


----------



## Hussar

Eltab said:


> I should have set up a stopwatch.
> Suggest a way to avoid an early-warning behavior of a problem, and eventually hear the objection, "But that would put a crimp in MY style!  How dare you lump me in with them."
> 
> Full Disclosure: I have never been drunk in my life; alcohol makes me sick to my stomach first.  So a 'No Alcohol; No Intoxication' policy will not harm me in the least.
> 
> I was reminded by a comment above, that drunk women make poor choices that _they_ regret in the morning, too.
> A dry 'Con reduces the problem from both sides of the interaction.




Catching up a bit, but, again, there's no actual causation here.  Where's the evidence that having alcohol at events increases harassment?

Someone brought up work places.  Sorry, but, no.  Workplace harassment doesn't just happen at office parties.  It happens all the time.  And, probably far, far more often when no alcohol is involved, simply because most workplaces aren't drinking all that often.  

So, until someone can actually draw a link between having alcohol at con's and harassment, I think we're really barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Eltab

shidaku said:


> "Those girls in skimpy cosplay are easy targets for predators."



I doubt that anybody is going to say "I'm a predator let me chime in on that" here, but we do have a couple of policemen and attorneys in this thread, who might have had to work a case where a predator explained himself.  Their testimony - DO predators see Cosplay outfits as an easy mark? - would inform the conversation.

The book "Tough Target" was written by a police detective.  His chapter to women on avoiding rape &c is helpful (primarily 'taking defensive measures'): he explains what draws a predator towards you and what persuades a predator to leave you alone in the first place.
I will presume that selfishly-motivated pests unconsciously read the same signals as the actively-dangerous, so the advice will still apply in a Con context.

Does anybody know of other books / webpages full of good advice?


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> No one is saying "chicks be crazy"




You're here for rational, fact-based discussion, right? Let's try some fact-checking.

Post #3 in this thread ended with a "chicks be crazy" argument. Though the specific phrase was "third wave feminism", the intent and tone were functionally equivalent

When the thread had a total of 10 posts, *half* of those 10 posts were either (a) the first of the "chicks be crazy" posts, or (b) responses to that post. The poster got banned, but not before influencing the parameters of the conversation, the Overton Window.

Page 2, post 19, "If you find yourself alone with someone you barely know of the opposite gender, beat feet post haste. MeToo culture has gotten completely insane lately"

For a male reader, that's a direction to treat any new-to-you woman as a clear and present danger. Unless you have a "wingman" handy. (Well, the post also mentions wing-women. Do female PUAs use the same methods as male PUAs?)

Alas, Bagpuss, after reviewing the first two pages of the thread, your assertion seems questionable. Do you have any further "alternative facts" for us? Does The Enrichment Center promise to always provide a safe testing environment? Will cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test?


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> You're here for rational, fact-based discussion, right? Let's try some fact-checking.
> 
> Post #3 in this thread ended with a "chicks be crazy" argument. Though the specific phrase was "third wave feminism", the intent and tone were functionally equivalent




Forgive me I was referring to more recently in the thread, when more rational discussion is going on. Men be crazy if they think "showed her explicit photos on his cellphone" is an acceptable way to "put yourself out there".



> When the thread had a total of 10 posts, *half* of those 10 posts were either (a) the first of the "chicks be crazy" posts, or (b) responses to that post. The poster got banned, but not before influencing the parameters of the conversation, the Overton Window.




I don't think there is anything wrong with 'putting yourself out there' at a convention, they are social occasions after all, but one rebuff should be enough to get the message the person isn't interested. Unfortunately with the single male to female ratio at most conventions if can lead to a women being hit on multiple times, feeling like harassment. Hopefully most reasonable people will accept there is a time and place, so not in the middle of a game for example. But then harassment policies aren't really needed if everyone was reasonable.



> Page 2, post 19, "If you find yourself alone with someone you barely know of the opposite gender, beat feet post haste. MeToo culture has gotten completely insane lately"




Yeah we haven't got to that point, I can see how that is a concern for some with a number of high profile false accusations and the effect that can have on someone. Still they are statistically insignificant to the number of incidents of harassment and unreported incidents. 

Teachers are taught to try and avoid one on one situations, as much as to protect themselves as well as the kids. It's just an unfortunate reflection of the times we live in, but better to believe a kid even if a small number will make stuff up than not (because of all the historical abuse that occured when people ignored kids). Same with harassment, better to believe, but I guess that means some people feel they need to protect themselves. Personally I'm not that paranoid, but I guess others can be if they want.



> Alas, Bagpuss, after reviewing the first two pages of the thread, your assertion seems questionable. Do you have any further "alternative facts" for us?




Yeah sorry as I said before I was talking about the more recent discussion. Better to reclassify the nobody to "nobody (with a reasonable level of empathy)".



> Does The Enrichment Center promise to always provide a safe testing environment? Will cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test?




Not familiar with the reference. But if cake is involved...


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> Forgive me I was referring to more recently in the thread, when more rational discussion is going on. Men be crazy if they think "showed her explicit photos on his cellphone" is an acceptable way to "put yourself out there".




Okay, fair enough. Yeah, the BWBBB (Boys Will Be Boys Brigade) has mostly hit and run. Not that I'm dropping my guard.

SOME offers are welcome and SOME of those offers get accepted, and hey, I tip my hat to anyone who finds such joy at a con. I'm not out to impose chastity on a "dog in the manger" basis. 



Bagpuss said:


> Teachers are taught to try and avoid one on one situations, as much as to protect themselves as well as the kids.




Indeed. I spent last weekend as an adult volunteer for a sleepover for nine middle-school teenagers. We had everyone gathered around a campfire, and all of the youth but one went elsewhere, leaving one youth in a long, engaged, meaningful conversation with the program director. I trust him 100%, and trust his judgement 99%, and trust that youth as much as I can reasonably trust anyone at such a volatile age. Even so, I swung back to the campfire, now and then, for the rest of the evening. Not so much to protect her from him; not so much to protect him from an accusation or misunderstanding; more to *deny the precedent* of one adult with one youth, alone with each other for a long interval. So that, next year, some OTHER adult doesn't have the pretext of "well, if it's okay for HIM to do it, then it's okay for ME to do it". It was a hassle, I was more than ready to go off shift and get some sleep, but I wanted them to have the conversation AND maintain organizational practices which deny openings to predators. 

Anyways, besides self-valorizing, the crossover point is that going out of my way, and getting less sleep, for the sweet spot between "no boundaries" and "no connection", was worthwhile.



Bagpuss said:


> Not familiar with the reference. But if cake is involved...




Video game reference. GlaDOS, in Portal. the cake is a lie, the cake is a lie, the cake is a lie. I'll stand down, on questioning your good faith intentions. I may, however, maintain a "no, seriously, the situation is worse than most men think it is" position, until I hear more women saying "I went to a con and I wasn't harassed at all".


----------



## Riley37

Eltab said:


> His chapter to women on avoiding rape &c is helpful (primarily 'taking defensive measures'




On one hand, I'm not dismissing the value of defensive measures.

On another hand, when what I hear from women at cons, is "I want men to offer more training and reading on how I can take defensive measures", THEN that's when I'll try to provide resources as asked. In the meantime, my impression is that women are more interested in what cons can do, to make "Predators not welcome here," into a message from con management and from the entire con participant community, as well as a message from each woman speaking individually for herself.


----------



## Count_Zero

As far as improved ways of communicating the harassment policy goes - in addition to posting the policy around the convention, my local anime con (Kumoricon) includes a presentation of the Harassment policy as part of the opening ceremony, through a "Rules Video" created by the con staff and the Cosplay Guest(s) of honor. To make sure as many people go to this as possible, Opening Ceremony is:


The first panel of the con (more or less)
In the largest theater in the con.
Usually includes a musical performance or prominent presence by some of the other con guests to make sure people want to go.
The rules video is done as a video instead of just a stage skit so it can also be put on YouTube at the same time/immediately after opening ceremonies, so people coming _late_ can also watch the video.
That, combined with signs throughout the con, provides for pretty much maximum possible exposure of the policy for con attendees. This doesn't stop harassment from people outside of the con - but usually the con has some contacts with the local police department so if the locals are harassing attendees con staff can get - and have gotten - the police involved.


----------



## pogre

Eltab said:


> Does anybody know of other books / webpages full of good advice?




Although I do not know if this is the kind of resource you are looking for - Illinois and most states have a Sexual Assault (or Rape)* Shield Law. 

The intent of the legislation is to make sure the focus of a criminal prosecution for rape should be on the behavior of the accused and whether that behavior violated the law. What the victim wore, who her friends are, what her reputation is, and the identity of her past sexual partners are entirely irrelevant.

I've always maintained any person reporting a sexual assault or abuse should be immediately informed about this important protection. It prohibits the defense from asking these questions and any such information is inadmissible.

Not surprisingly, it has been contested numerous times as a violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment right. However, the court's have upheld the law every time.

Not a preventative measure, but I think if it were more widely known, might lead to more reporting. More reporting and prosecutions would help raise awareness.

*Illinois and most states under the model penal code have removed the word rape from their criminal code and instead define criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse - conveying more accurately the violent nature of these offenses.


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> the cake is a lie, the cake is a lie, the cake is a lie.





No cake? 




> I'll stand down, on questioning your good faith intentions. I may, however, maintain a "no, seriously, the situation is worse than most men think it is" position, until I hear more women saying "I went to a con and I wasn't harassed at all".




Well I did try to see what I could find out about UK conventions, especially after someone saying "Dragonmeet having a harassment policy for a reason" and it turned up this survey that got very little response over at RPG.net.

They survey itself was very bias the only answers allowed harassment at RPG conventions, to be worse than the baseline, but the first three women to respond with their experiences all say they have never experienced harassment at a convention (but that wasn't an option on the poll). One of whom had been attending Dragonmeet for 10 years and had never heard of an incident. The worst thing mentioned (other than by the original poster) was cheesecake art being a thing, and that some woman that wore a skimpy cosplay got a lot of male gaze.

Two voted for slightly worse than average social events, but didn't seem to comment.

It's only a small data point but it does make me wonder if the UK is a different culture than the US cons.


----------



## Umbran

Bagpuss said:


> It's only a small data point but it does make me wonder if the UK is a different culture than the US cons.




Reponses on a highly flawed, self-selecting, low-response rate poll on a site based in the US should not be considered an indicator of what UK culture is like. 

IMHO.  But I'm really pretty sure my humble opinon is right on this one.


----------



## Bagpuss

Umbran said:


> Reponses on a highly flawed, self-selecting, low-response rate poll on a site based in the US should not be considered an indicator of what UK culture is like.




True but neither should reports form US conventions.


----------



## Sunseeker

Eltab said:


> I doubt that anybody is going to say "I'm a predator let me chime in on that" here, but we do have a couple of policemen and attorneys in this thread, who might have had to work a case where a predator explained himself.  Their testimony - DO predators see Cosplay outfits as an easy mark? - would inform the conversation.
> 
> The book "Tough Target" was written by a police detective.  His chapter to women on avoiding rape &c is helpful (primarily 'taking defensive measures'): he explains what draws a predator towards you and what persuades a predator to leave you alone in the first place.
> I will presume that selfishly-motivated pests unconsciously read the same signals as the actively-dangerous, so the advice will still apply in a Con context.
> 
> Does anybody know of other books / webpages full of good advice?




I generally dislike books of "advice" for women on how to protect themselves.  Sadly, it is necessary, but truly, we should have books with chapters aimed at men cleaning up their act.  Because lets face it, they're the overwhelming majority of the problem.  Yes yes, I'm sure there's a few female sexual harassers, both of men and women, but they're statistically anomalous so I'm not gonna go there.

But I directed my "jab" at Sadras and I will expand upon it here.  When you or Sadras or _anyone_ brings up "cosplay outfits" there is a seeming neutrality to the comment, but the neutrality is belied by the implication of what you assume "female cosplay" to be.  Now, this includes two parts: most people, when questioned what they think "female cosplay" is, will _probably_ give some example of sexy, slutty, revealing or cosplay of otherwise skimpy design.  That's the first part.  The second part is that outside of cross-play most of the _female characters_ have sexy, slutty, revealing or otherwise skimpy costume designs.  

Statements like "I wonder if their cosplay had something to do with it." Implies three things: first, that the cosplay in question is going to attract the attention of a harasser, and second: that it does so because of its inherent sexual nature and third: that they had a choice between the "slutty cosplay" and the "not slutty cosplay".  

It is, even if that isn't the intention, one of those kind of statements that reads like a lot of victim blaming statements.  "If only her *outfit* wasn't so *thing I disagree with* then she could have avoided *bad things*."  



Sadras said:


> I'm assuming this was meant for me (not that I used the word skimpy). There was nothing sinister meant in that comment. It is not hard to imagine that predators would target cosplayers.
> 
> Upthread posters were discussing various ideas that could be done at cons to decrease sexual harassment and make people more aware. One of those ideas were catchy posters/pamphlets. I believe @_*Umbran*_ mentioned _Cosplay does not mean Consent_ which everyone thought was a pretty decent catch-phrase.




"Cosplay is not consent." is actually an incredibly popular slogan throughout many cosplay circles.  It IS a decent catch-phrase.  



Bagpuss said:


> No one is saying "chicks be crazy" there is a danger however in over stating a problem as it will make it seem like all Conventions are hostile spaces for women. Which will make it less likely women will attend, making it less inclusive which is the opposite of what we want to achieve.
> 
> Having clear and robust and well publicised policies and enforcement of those policies is the best solution.




Most large gatherings of people are hostile to women, because statistics.  Cons are simply no exception.  They may in fact be _worse_ due to the traditionally male-centric gaming industry.  

Outright stating that we've noticed that cons can be hostile to women is more likely to raise awareness than it is to scare people off.  Several of the female posters in this thread have already stated they'll never attend a con because they _already find them too hostile_.  So, we're kinda passed the point of "scaring people off" because con's "appear hostile".



Bagpuss said:


> True but neither should reports form US conventions.





Which goes back to the point I made several pages ago:


*IF* there is a difference in harassment rates in UK (or European) Cons, is this a result of a different culture at-large, or of a different method of handling harassment?
-One of these things can be easily imported to (if the rate is lower of course) improve US Cons.  A difference in culture cannot.


----------



## Eltab

pogre said:


> Not surprisingly, it {Sexual Assault Shield Law} has been contested numerous times as a violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment right. However, the court's have upheld the law every time.
> 
> Not a preventative measure, but I think if it were more widely known, might lead to more reporting. More reporting and prosecutions would help raise awareness.



I can see both sides on the first point.  I'd want to know about a person who accused me (because such accusation would be false); OTOH, intimidation and counter-attacks are a favorite technique of predators who want to be left alone to find a new target.

_+1 to your second point._  Part of the harassment policy (the longer version that you can read at leisure) could include something like "ThisCon will consult with law enforcement about reported incidents and will file legal charges against perpetrators if such action is deemed appropriate."


----------



## Maxperson

Eltab said:


> I can see both sides on the first point.  I'd want to know about a person who accused me (because such accusation would be false); OTOH, intimidation and counter-attacks are a favorite technique of predators who want to be left alone to find a new target.
> 
> _+1 to your second point._  Part of the harassment policy (the longer version that you can read at leisure) could include something like "ThisCon will consult with law enforcement about reported incidents and will file legal charges against perpetrators if such action is deemed appropriate."




The Con can report the incident to the police, but it cannot file charges.  That's the job of the DA or City Attorney(I think).


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> The Con can report the incident to the police, but it cannot file charges.  That's the job of the DA or City Attorney(I think).




In many cases, charges cannot (or more technically will not) be filed without consent/cooperation of the victim.  If the victim isn't willing to stand up and say, "this was done to me", then the prosecutor probably doesn't have much to go on.  

The Convention is not the victim in such a case.


----------



## Riley37

I will attend a local gaming con later this month and I will keep this thread in mind while I am there.

There may also be opportunities for observation at a major conference in June in the USA.

Origins is a game industry convention. It's a convention of interest for anyone who writes, publishes or sells game products, such as boardgames, TRPG, miniatures, CCGs and related merchandise. The Game Manufacturers Association (GAMA) presents awards at Origins.

Larry Correia is co-author of a TRPG book, "The Monster Hunter International Employee Handbook and Roleplaying Game". Content relates to his novels; not the same thing as a similarly-named computer game. MHIEHRPG was written for compatibility with the Hero System of TRPG rules, in 2013. Anyways, this year's Origins planners chose Larry Correia as Guest of Honor, announced that choice, then retracted the invitation, with a brief public explanation. Correia wrote a public response to that decision, on his blog. Various people then expressed strong opinions on various social media; I am doing my best, in this paragraph, to lay out a few basic facts before putting my personal spin or interpretation on those facts. 

The announcement was vague on the reasons for the dis-invitation. Whether it was prudently vague or cowardly vague is up for debate. Correia's response was strongly worded and quickly brought up other events from past years, framing them as relevant context. He plays his biases face up on the table.

Correia has a particular history with conventions which include awards presentations. Correia was, in past years, the founder of the "Sad Puppies" movement at Worldcon, which sponsors the Hugo Awards. His associate Vox Day then split off a "Rabid Puppies" movement. Can we stipulate, or must we demonstrate by example, that there is a range of strong opinions, in the gaming community, about the merits or flaws of the Puppies? I could express my opinions here, but I expressed them, back at the time, on the website of the Sad Puppies 2015 organizer (Brad Torgerson), and they are too long to rehash in this post. (Trying to rehash everything said back then, in this thread, would be kind of like putting a Bag of Holding into a Portable Hole.)

Origins is bracing for harassment. According to a source I trust (personal friend in the industry) but cannot present as proof to EN World readers, someone has doxxed and harassed some members of the GAMA board. Correia himself has not asked or encouraged his fans to harass or dox anyone. Anyways, one can argue that Origins should leave politics out of gaming, but at this point, politics will come to them, ready or not, no matter what they do.

I expect someone to write a response, using lots of caps-lock, that I have NO PROOF! Yes, that's right. If the only things we discuss, are things already proven to the standard of a court, then we also can't discuss whether Saruman turned evil; not unless you consider Galdalf's declaration as anything more than a "kangaroo court". For that matter, I also have no proof that Richard Nixon was complicit with the Watergate burglary; he was never tried, and therefore never convicted. But when a King asks "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?", sometimes someone does.

More information on Origins is available at their site, http://originsgamefair.com/

Irate invective, complete with distortions and hyperbole, on this topic and many others, is readily available on a variety of social media.


----------



## Eltab

Riley37 said:


> The announcement was *vague* on the reasons for the dis-invitation. Whether it was prudently *vague* or cowardly *vague* is up for debate.
> 
> I expect someone to write a response, using lots of caps-lock, that I have NO PROOF!



The communications you cite are not the only thing that is *vague*.  I feel like I heard "There will be road construction during rush hour" on the radio but not where the crews are working.

And behold: no caps lock.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## dco

DemoMonkey said:


> There are really only 3 choices:
> 
> 1) Always believe the accusers.
> *Result:* Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.
> 
> 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.
> *Result*: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.
> 
> 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all.
> *Result*: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.
> 
> So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the world and what price you are willing to pay for it.



I stay neutral, I don't know you, the man or woman who writes the first post, the people involved, etc, for all I know it is one post in a forum that could be as non sensical as your post.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> In many cases, charges cannot (or more technically will not) be filed without consent/cooperation of the victim.  If the victim isn't willing to stand up and say, "this was done to me", then the prosecutor probably doesn't have much to go on.
> 
> The Convention is not the victim in such a case.




Yeah.  It depends on the city and state.  

When I was in my 20's I was falsely accused by a now ex-girlfriend.  It was the 4th of July and she was going to go spend the day with her mother.  I wasn't going because her mother didn't like me.  My ex and I got into a fight and demanded that I leave the house.  I told her no, because she was leaving soon.  she decided she was going to "teach me a less" by calling the police and saying that there was a man in her house that wouldn't leave.  The police showed up and they decided they were going to arrest me.  As soon as they said that, my ex told them that she didn't want to press charges.  They told her that O.J. changed everything and now it wasn't up to the person calling the police any longer.  If they had any reason to think that domestic violence was a possibility, they arrested the man.  

It was a Thursday and the courts were closed for the Friday after the 4th as well, so I spent 4 days in jail for something I never did.  When Monday rolled around the public defender came in and introduced himself to me and said he would be back in a while.  He returned and told me he had to recuse himself as he was also defending my ex for her assault on one of our neighbors(I had forgotten about that with everything going on).  The new public defender came in and introduced herself to me and said that the DA was offering me something like 100 days of community service if I pled no contest.  Being young and knowing next to nothing about law at the time, I asked if it would go on my record and was told yes.  I let her know that I was innocent and refused the deal.  A little while later she came back and told me that they were now offering me 10 or so days of community service if I would plead no contest.  I again told her no, because I didn't do it and let her know that I would not agree to anything that went on my record.  Eventually she came back and told me that if I pled no contest and went to violence classes, when I returned to court my plea would be withdrawn and re-entered as not guilty and the charges would be dismissed.  After assuring that meant that it would not show up on my records, I asked what my chances were if I maintained my innocence and went to trial.  She said 50/50, depending on if the jury believed my ex who was going to testify on my behalf.  I took the deal rather than face a 50/50 prospect. The violence classes were a joke.  The counselor opened up each class by telling us not to hit people and they spent the rest of the session talking about the Lakers.

I was lucky.  Many people are who are falsely accused don't end up with a deal like I got.  They get screwed, sometimes for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> I will attend a local gaming con later this month and I will keep this thread in mind while I am there.




I will be there on Sunday and I'm going to keep an eye out as well.  I haven't seen any harassment at any of these cons, but I really haven't been looking for it, either.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - you Americans get a jury trial for misdemeanors?  What were you being charged with?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - you Americans get a jury trial for misdemeanors?  What were you being charged with?




I figured the reference to O.J. would have made that easy to guess  

Domestic violence was what I was taken in for.  I'm not sure of of the exact name of the charge anymore.  Probably domestic battery or something like that.  It was a long time ago and I don't remember much more than I told you.


----------



## Shasarak

It is a real shame to see the on-line harassment of the minority author Larry Correia that caused the Origins Game Fair to exclude their "Guest of Honor".  I doubt you would have seen this happen to a white author.


----------



## Riley37

Eltab said:


> The communications you cite are not the only thing that is *vague*.  I feel like I heard "There will be road construction during rush hour" on the radio but not where the crews are working.




I figured that since I was the first one to mention Origins 2018 in this thread, I'd better err on the side of presenting the known events and third-party-verifiable facts in a relatively neutral way, even though I have strong opinions and loyalties, and a friend personally involved. In the process of self-moderation, I probably ended up with blandness. I figure Umbran and Morrus might prefer that I started a bland description, which might THEN draw colorful commentary, rather than starting with description which presented my biases, including my opinions on the Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, and Gamergate, as if they were consensus and uncontested common ground.

Here's where the crews are working: "Origins is bracing for harassment." June 13-18, 2018, Columbus, Ohio.

That said, here's an undiluted, not-holding-back Riley37 opinion: Larry Correia is an even worse "garbage human" than Benjamin "Sargon" Carl, and both of them use the Henry II method ("who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?").

I do not know the relationship between that kind of harassment - doxxing, barrages of hate mail, etc. - and the "persistent sexual advances, won't take no for an answer" kind of harassment. Seriously, I don't know. Except that I'd bet my left thumb that in both varieties, men tend to target women.


----------



## Riley37

Shasarak said:


> It is a real shame to see the on-line harassment of the minority author Larry Correia that caused the Origins Game Fair to exclude their "Guest of Honor".  I doubt you would have seen this happen to a white author.




I disagree three ways:

(A) You assume that online harassment caused Origins to disinvite Correia. Correia's history of trying to game an awards process, and when he failed, trying to *destroy* the awards process, was a significant concern for a con which holds an awards ceremony. You can read the initial plan at Correia's site, which is overtly about (1) getting him a Hugo and (2) the joys of inflicting suffering on people Correia doesn't like. It took two or three more years for the process to devolve into just trying to burn the Hugo awards to the ground; but start with Correia's own words. http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/

(B) Correia is white. Yes, there was a time when the Klan targeted immigrants from Southern Europe, including Portuguese. Even so, they didn't make immigrants from Portugal sit in the back of the bus. No one calls the police on Correia for sitting at a Starbucks, or doing a real estate inspection, or holding a BB gun in the aisle where the Walmart sells BB guns. Sheriff Joe Arpaio will never pull over Correia and demand to see his green card. Richard Spencer's vision of an all-white USA includes and welcomes Correia. Larry is a "minority" only in the sense that white people are a minority of the seven billion humans.

(C) If you can somehow get a con to choose Theodore Beale as Guest of Honor, and *then* reveal that Beale is also known as "Vox Day" and they review his track record, at THAT point you will see that con disinvite a white GoH. Beale is a white supremacist, he wants to reverse women's suffrage, and he cheerfully trumped the Sad Puppies by starting the Rabid Puppies, bursting out of the Sad Puppies' collective chest like the xenomorph in "Alien". Any con planning committee who chooses THAT white man as Guest of Honor, is gonna produce a con which happens only once, at most.

(D) ConCarolinas 2018 already invited and disinvited John Ringo as Special Guest Author, for similar reasons. They picked Ringo; then people (especially women and people of color) learned that Ringo was SGA, and decided they didn't wanna be anywhere near him, based on his history; then Ringo's fans harassed the people who withdrew from ConCarolinas; then the con decided that having Ringo as Special Guest Author wasn't such a good idea after all. So this already HAS happened to a white author.

(E) You forgot to say "get woke, go broke", which is what ALL the cool kids are saying these days, where by "cool kids" I mean "people who blatantly tip their hand about what flavors of politics they'll tolerate in gaming and/or in genre fiction."


----------



## Shasarak

This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities.



Riley37 said:


> I disagree three ways:
> 
> (A) You assume that online harassment caused Origins to disinvite Correia. Correia's history of trying to game an awards process, and when he failed, trying to *destroy* the awards process, was a significant concern for a con which holds an awards ceremony. You can read the initial plan at Correia's site, which is overtly about (1) getting him a Hugo and (2) the joys of inflicting suffering on people Correia doesn't like. It took two or three more years for the process to devolve into just trying to burn the Hugo awards to the ground; but start with Correia's own words. http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/




The are a few fake facts here.  First he was not the only one to notice that the awards process for the Hugos was unfairly rigged and if your system is based on a popularity vote then you can hardly get upset when someone tries to organise other people to vote in similar ways.  I mean that is how the voting system works.  Second he did not want to 'burn the awards to the ground' he wanted to show the corruption in the system.

And last time I checked exposing corruption is only a 'bad' thing if you are part of the elite milking the system. 



> (B) Correia is white. Yes, there was a time when the Klan targeted immigrants from Southern Europe, including Portuguese. Even so, they didn't make immigrants from Portugal sit in the back of the bus. No one calls the police on Correia for sitting at a Starbucks, or doing a real estate inspection, or holding a BB gun in the aisle where the Walmart sells BB guns. Sheriff Joe Arpaio will never pull over Correia and demand to see his green card. Richard Spencer's vision of an all-white USA includes and welcomes Correia. Larry is a "minority" only in the sense that white people are a minority of the seven billion humans.




So if you 'look' white then you are not a minority?  Yeah I guess if you live in Portugal.  And what about Jewish people, they look white so obviously they are not a minority because they can sit at Starbucks.  



> (C) If you can somehow get a con to choose Theodore Beale as Guest of Honor, and *then* reveal that Beale is also known as "Vox Day" and they review his track record, at THAT point you will see that con disinvite a white GoH. Beale is a white supremacist, he wants to reverse women's suffrage, and he cheerfully trumped the Sad Puppies by starting the Rabid Puppies, bursting out of the Sad Puppies' collective chest like the xenomorph in "Alien". Any con planning committee who chooses THAT white man as Guest of Honor, is gonna produce a con which happens only once, at most.
> 
> (D) ConCarolinas 2018 already invited and disinvited John Ringo as Special Guest Author, for similar reasons. They picked Ringo; then people (especially women and people of color) learned that Ringo was SGA, and decided they didn't wanna be anywhere near him, based on his history; then Ringo's fans harassed the people who withdrew from ConCarolinas; then the con decided that having Ringo as Special Guest Author wasn't such a good idea after all. So this already HAS happened to a white author.
> 
> (E) You forgot to say "get woke, go broke", which is what ALL the cool kids are saying these days, where by "cool kids" I mean "people who blatantly tip their hand about what flavors of politics they'll tolerate in gaming and/or in genre fiction."




Not sure how this pertains to Larry other then to show that some Con organisers are either idiots for not checking who they are inviting as Guets or spineless cretins for not supporting their own choices.


----------



## Mallus

Shasarak said:


> This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities.



You mean facts?


----------



## Nylanfs

Shasarak said:


> This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities.




Other than some of B, stating verifiable facts of actions can not be harassment.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Shasarak said:


> This is the exact type of disgusting harassment that should not be tolerated, especially against minorities.




I am not clear on which harassment here has you upset?


----------



## billd91

Riley37 said:


> (B) Correia is white. Yes, there was a time when the Klan targeted immigrants from Southern Europe, including Portuguese. Even so, they didn't make immigrants from Portugal sit in the back of the bus. No one calls the police on Correia for sitting at a Starbucks, or doing a real estate inspection, or holding a BB gun in the aisle where the Walmart sells BB guns. Sheriff Joe Arpaio will never pull over Correia and demand to see his green card. Richard Spencer's vision of an all-white USA includes and welcomes Correia. Larry is a "minority" only in the sense that white people are a minority of the seven billion humans.




This is actually a thing. While not treated as poorly as anyone with black skin, a friend of mine does put up with a shocking amount of harassment for being Portuguese-American, including being stopped by cops for DWH - Driving while Hispanic. And in the wake of the Trump election, he even had to deal with a parent at the school he teaches say “Now we can send you back to where you came from!” To which his response was “Racine?”

So *do not* assume all European-descended caucasians are as “white” as every other one in the eyes of racists. They are not.

That said, I’d think his Sad Puppy obnoxiousness would be sufficient to make Correia toxic for any industry awards show. And it *should* be.

Edit: Whoops, got the city wrong. He's originally from Racine, WI.


----------



## Particle_Man

Also, it is quite possible to be a member of a minority group while targeting another minority group and/or harassing women. Both of those activities should get one booted from or banned from a con for safety and other reasons, regardless of one’s minority status.


----------



## Shasarak

Mallus said:


> You mean facts?






Nylanfs said:


> Other than some of B, stating verifiable facts of actions can not be harassment.




You mean the facts that if you look white then you are not a 'real' minority?  



Jeanneliza said:


> I am not clear on which harassment here has you upset?




You can check the Origins Game Fair news thread to get the full story but the short form is that a bunch of activists kicked up a  storm of false accusations that resulted in the exclusion of minority author Larry Correia from being a Guest of Honor at the show.


----------



## Particle_Man

What if the accusations are true? Would that change your mind or is minority status a get out of accusations free card?


----------



## Riley37

billd91 said:


> So *do not* assume all European-descended caucasians are as “white” as every other one in the eyes of racists. They are not.




That's a fact. Jewish, Roma, Irish, Iberian, Slavic, and many others, all fall somewhere on the sliding scale of racism, to those who consider Anglo-Saxon heritage as the pinnacle, the Platonic ideal of whiteness. Nuances vary by location; an Irish background in Tokyo, and an Irish background in London, both differ from the experience of Irish background in Boston, which in turn varies by neighborhood. 

Americans with Iberian surnames can encounter racist friction. Americans with Iberian surnames, *and* ancestry from the pre-Columbian populations of the Americas, can encounter even more friction, because they tend to have darker skin and "mestizo" features. Americans with Native ancestry, and *any* surname, tend to experience mistreatment. (The way that the USA considers anyone whose ancestors lived north of the Rio Grande in 1488, as an entirely separate category from anyone whose ancestors lived south of the Rio Grande in 1488, kinda baffles me. But I digress.)

In my case, darker-than-pale skin from the American side of my ancestry probably *helped* when I passed through London, because I didn't look "Irish". I have an Irish name, but neither the features nor the accent which triggers "look out, an Irishman!" I'll never know for sure.

Correia has a non-Anglo-Saxon name. He also grew up poor. He says that about half his schoolmates spoke English and about half of them could read. On the axis of family wealth, he did not start out on the EASY setting. I stand by my assertion that he could, today, pick up a BB gun, in a Walmart, without then getting shot dead in the same gorram aisle where he took it off the shelf, unlike John Crawford III. I stand by my assertion that that Sheriff Joe Arpaio will never demand to see Correia's green card.

Shaserak may think that he's a razor-sharp satirist, by turning the tables of who protests mistreatment on the axis of race, and who's "crying wolf". If so, I disagree with that assessment. I see it less as razor-sharp, and more as a blunt object. Correia's position, as stated on his blog: "I don’t know which demographic box liberals are sticking me in this week. Personally, I don’t give a crap because I’m an American. I find that whole game amusing."


----------



## Riley37

Anyways, back to the topic of harassment of cons. Would this count as harassment, if dozens of people did it:

"The evil side of me wants to go up to the Green Ronin booth at GenCon, chalk up a big purchase, then stop before checking out and ask, “Wait, didn’t you people work to get Correia disinvited from Origins? Never mind. Put it all back.”

That's a comment from one of Correia's "rabid fanbase" (his words), in a discussion on Monster Hunter Nation, of various ways they might respond to Origins, shortly after Correia45 (that's his handle in the comments) picked out Green Ronin as an appropriate target. Boycotts are not harassment, as such, and letters saying "this is why I'm not buying your merchandise" are not generally harassment (depending on what else they say), but I assess this behavior as going one step beyond a boycott. In effect, it also punishes anyone standing behind him, in the line to buy Green Ronin's products.


----------



## Sadras

Particle_Man said:


> What if the accusations are true? Would that change your mind or is minority status a get out of accusations free card?




Lets not play the _what if_ game when there IS facts available.
Solely based on the article on his website I cannot see him being the sexist, racist or homo/trans-phobic they claim him to be. It seems like it was a dick move by the organisers to remove him.  
The Sad Puppy thing he did personally seems wrong (I admit I don't know enough there) but I would not dis-invite someone because of that. Seems like people these days are too quick to shut people down instead of opening up dialogue.


----------



## Particle_Man

Sadras said:


> The Sad Puppy thing he did personally seems wrong (I admit I don't know enough there) but I would not dis-invite someone because of that.




I would. And it would be because of that, not because of his minority status.


----------



## Sadras

Particle_Man said:


> I would. And it would be because of that, not because of his minority status.




If as an honoured guest there was a Q&A you lose the opportunity to address his actions/involvement in the Sad Puppy debacle in a public forum. To me that is a missed opportunity.


----------



## Particle_Man

I don't see why inviting him is required to address his actions/involvement in the Sad Puppy debacle.  After all, (to get back closer to this thread's topic) we don't usually need to invite sexual harassers to a Q&A in order to address why sexual harassment is bad.


----------



## kenmarable

Sadras said:


> Lets not play the _what if_ game when there IS facts available.
> *Solely based on the article on his website* I cannot see him being the sexist, racist or homo/trans-phobic they claim him to be. It seems like it was a dick move by the organisers to remove him.
> The Sad Puppy thing he did personally seems wrong (I admit I don't know enough there) but I would not dis-invite someone because of that. Seems like people these days are too quick to shut people down instead of opening up dialogue.




Well, if *he* says he's not sexist, racist, or homo/transphobic, then I'm sure there's no problem! *eye roll*


----------



## Sadras

Particle_Man said:


> I don't see why inviting him is required to address his actions/involvement in the Sad Puppy debacle.




It isn't, but I don't believe his involvement/actions in the Sad Puppy debacle is a strong enough reason to dis-invite him. Origins is a gaming con, [FONT=&amp]and he is both a game designer and owner of a property with new games coming out next year. Furthermore he just won an award for miniatures painting.[/FONT] Not everything is about books.

It just doesn't feel right to want to ban this person from _all life_ because of Sad Puppies.
We can agree to disagree on this point. 



> After all, (to get back closer to this thread's topic) we don't usually need to invite sexual harassers to a Q&A in order to address why sexual harassment is bad.




As I mentioned above, it is a gaming con. 

EDIT: Also, bizarrely, I feel the need to point out that sexual harassment is a crime. 



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> Well, if he says he's not sexist, racist, or homo/transphobic, then I'm sure there's no problem! *eye roll*




Should you have evidence that reflects differently I'm all eyes.


----------



## Riley37

Shasarak said:


> It is a real shame to see the on-line harassment of the minority author Larry Correia that caused the Origins Game Fair to exclude their "Guest of Honor".  I doubt you would have seen this happen to a white author.




I listed some points of disagreement. Point B is arguable, though only if you treat a sliding scale as if it were an on/off toggle. Point C is hypothetical. Point D is an specific counter-example to the second sentence. It has already happened, earlier this year, to a white author.



Shasarak said:


> The (sic) are a few fake facts here.




Are you perhaps building your resume, in case there's a job opening which involves calling facts "fake"? It's an expanding field, these days. Fake birth certificate! Fake fossil record! Fake measurements of ocean levels!

In this specific case, however, John Ringo has already said that yes, this happened to him. You sure you wanna call him a liar? He was a soldier, an elite soldier, and if he decides that you're insulting his honesty...



Shasarak said:


> Not sure how this pertains to Larry other then to show that some Con organisers are either idiots for not checking who they are inviting as Guets or spineless cretins for not supporting their own choices.




Well, when you say "I doubt you would have seen this happen", and I point to an example in which yes, I saw that happen, and then you can't see how that example​ pertains...

...then I leave it to the rest of EN World, to decide whether you can't see because it doesn't pertain, or whether you can't see because you're doubling down on denial.


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> Anyways, back to the topic of harassment of cons. Would this count as harassment, if dozens of people did it:




Legally no, but for Origins Harassment Policy (which is all that matters in this case) yes.

"Harassment is generally any behavior that alarms, threatens, or *excessively annoys another person or group*."

I think they would class it as annoying.


----------



## Maxperson

Particle_Man said:


> I would. And it would be because of that, not because of his minority status.




To dis-invite someone for saying something you disagree with is non-inclusive, though.  To do so while citing inclusiveness is hypocritical.  If they wanted to be inclusive, they should have kept him and let him know that he wasn't to say those things at the convention.


----------



## Particle_Man

There is no reason to tolerate the intolerant.


----------



## Maxperson

Particle_Man said:


> There is no reason to tolerate the intolerant.




In other words, people should be tolerant and inclusive unless they say or do something you disagree with, then it's okay to be intolerant and non-inclusive.  

Tolerance and inclusiveness are like free speech.  They are all or nothing.  If there is even a single instance where you don't tolerate, don't include or disallow speech, there is no such thing tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> In other words, people should be tolerant and inclusive unless they say or do something you disagree with, then it's okay to be intolerant and non-inclusive.
> 
> Tolerance and inclusiveness are like free speech.  They are all or nothing.  If there is even a single instance where you don't tolerate, don't include or disallow speech, there is no such thing tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech.




No, they are not and they never have been. Particularly not in a private forum.
There are forms of speech that have never been protected by the courts from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to "fighting words". As far as tolerance goes, how can intolerance be tolerated and still have a tolerant society? Tolerance must be *defended*.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> No, they are not and they never have been. Particularly not in a private forum.
> There are forms of speech that have never been protected by the courts from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to "fighting words". As far as tolerance goes, how can intolerance be tolerated and still have a tolerant society? Tolerance must be *defended*.




The only speech that has been limited is that which either directly causes or has a high likelihood of directly causing physical harm to someone, like yelling fire in a theater.  It's a False Equivalence to equate that to other forms of speech that you feel should be disallowed.  The reason for it to be disallowed in the theater example is that you have conflicting rights, and a person's right not to be physically injured by you is stronger than your right to say words.  

As for tolerance, the U.S. has already achieved perfection.  Say all the hate speech you want and it's tolerated(as it should be in a society that has free speech).  Act on it by harming another or damaging property other than your own and you go to jail.  

The major problem with defending tolerance like this is that you create a situation where tolerance doesn't exist.  It's like defending your right to be a pacifist by punching everyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## Particle_Man

Once again, free speech protections exist only to protect against a government shutting it down. There is no requirement to tolerate it by a nongovernmental entity on a private forum or a private party. A con can disinvite people just as a messageboard can threadban people.  Correia was disinvited to a con. He is not in jail.


----------



## Maxperson

Particle_Man said:


> Once again, free speech protections exist only to protect against a government shutting it down. There is no requirement to tolerate it by a nongovernmental entity on a private forum or a private party. A con can disinvite people just as a messageboard can threadban people.  Correia was disinvited to a con. He is not in jail.




This is true.  However, you don't get to claim inclusivity or tolerance when you are being non-inclusive or intolerant.  The con in question is a non-inclusive, intolerant con.


----------



## Sunseeker

Once again the Paradox of Tolerance is useful.
View attachment 97710


----------



## Samurai

Particle_Man said:


> There is no reason to tolerate the intolerant.




Then all one needs to do is label your opponents "intolerant" and you are free to hate and discriminate all you want.  We have been seeing a whole lot of that lately...


----------



## Sunseeker

Samurai said:


> Then all one needs to do is label your opponents "intolerant" and you are free to hate and discriminate all you want.  We have been seeing a whole lot of that lately...




While there are people who do that, it's fairly easy to demonstrate where something is being called intolerant for their actions and their statements, and someone is being called intolerant just to get them to shut up.

It's not like we can't go back and review what people say, especially on a forum, or where a great deal of what they say and do is actually recorded.

The idea that in order to be tolerant you must tolerate EVERYTHING is just silly.


----------



## Samurai

shidaku said:


> While there are people who do that, it's fairly easy to demonstrate where something is being called intolerant for their actions and their statements, and someone is being called intolerant just to get them to shut up.
> 
> It's not like we can't go back and review what people say, especially on a forum, or where a great deal of what they say and do is actually recorded.
> 
> The idea that in order to be tolerant you must tolerate EVERYTHING is just silly.




I just find it insane that supporters of free speech are the supposedly "intolerant" ones, and those that want to limit speech and prevent people from speaking (like Antifa rioting to shut down speeches) claim to be the "tolerant" ones.

Tolerance of others' rights is intolerance, and intolerance of others' rights is tolerance.

View attachment 97711


----------



## Sunseeker

Samurai said:


> I just find it insane that supporters of free speech are the supposedly "intolerant" ones, and those that want to limit speech and prevent people from speaking (like Antifa rioting to shut down speeches) claim to be the "tolerant" ones.
> 
> Tolerance of others' rights is intolerance, and intolerance of others' rights is tolerance.




Cram it.  I'm not playing this game about Antifa and trying to shut down free speech.  /ignored.


----------



## Morrus

Samurai said:


> I just find it insane that supporters of free speech are the supposedly "intolerant" ones, and those that want to limit speech and prevent people from speaking (like Antifa rioting to shut down speeches) claim to be the "tolerant" ones.
> 
> Tolerance of others' rights is intolerance, and intolerance of others' rights is tolerance.
> 
> View attachment 97711




I don’t agree with the inane, semantic argument that tolerance means we have to tolerate intolerance. I even put that in the site rules. Don’t post in this thread again, please.


----------



## dragoner

Samurai said:


> I just find it insane that supporters of free speech are the supposedly "intolerant" ones, and those that want to limit speech and prevent people from speaking (like Antifa rioting to shut down speeches) claim to be the "tolerant" ones.
> 
> Tolerance of others' rights is intolerance, and intolerance of others' rights is tolerance.




Not at all, it would be insane for them to let their con become the vehicle for someone to spew venomous hate.

Using free speech to destroy free speech is irrational. An analogy is that treating a cold vs treating cancer is far different, you can leave a cold alone, while cancer must be aggressively removed if the patient is to survive.


----------



## JonnyP71

The whole 'tolerate intolerance' topic is a difficult one, as often, allowing the intolerant to speak helps us to identify the people who need to be ignored, plus there's the fact that silencing someone merely pushes them into a corner and allows their views to fester.  It's a tough job for any online moderator to get the balance right.

British satirist Jonathan Pie did a brilliant video on this - the key points are towards the end of the video, I won't post the link as it is specifically relating to a political topic, but it's 6 min 12 seconds long and he posted it to Youtube in November 2016 if anyone wishes to seek it out. It's very much NSFW though, with a lot of bad language.


----------



## Sadras

dragoner said:


> Not at all, it would be insane for them to let their con become the vehicle for someone to spew venomous hate.




Absolutely, but presumably though Larry would be discussing his RPG and any games/books in the works, even perhaps painting of miniatures. Again it is a gaming con. 

People are also able to disagree in civil conversation. The little exchange I saw between his open letter to GRRM and GRRM's reply on his Not a Blog was quite respectful. Kudos to them.


----------



## Particle_Man

Larry can still discuss all of those things on his blog without going to the con in question.


----------



## Sunseeker

Sadras said:


> Absolutely, but presumably though Larry would be discussing his RPG and any games/books in the works, even perhaps painting of miniatures. Again it is a gaming con.
> 
> People are also able to disagree in civil conversation. The little exchange I saw between his open letter to GRRM and GRRM's reply on his Not a Blog was quite respectful. Kudos to them.




The problem becomes, how much can we separate Larry, or _anyone_ with extreme views, from their work and their business.
When do we start asking how much of their _personal_ views are reflected in their business?

If we know that Imaginary Bill is, in his off time, a white supremacist, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view?  Even subtly?  If Imaginary Bill doesn't value women, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view as well?  How do we differentiate Bill's Patriarchal White-Majority Human-Dominated world from his own views, and from the fact that _that's what a lot of D&D worlds look like_?  Did Bill make his world that way because he's trying to promote his views through his work, consciously or unconsciously, or did he make his world that way because that's the material he drew inspiration from?  Did he draw inspiration from that particular material _because_ it appealed to his ideology?

Lets say that we invite Imaginary Bill to a Con.  What _preemptive_ restrictions do we put on him, knowing the things he believes and espouses in his off time?  Do we apply a general "Hey man, that other stuff, don't talk about it here?"  Or do we stay silent?  What do we do if Imaginary Jane approaches Bill and starts taking him to task over his white supremacist views?  Is Bill allowed to promote his views now that he's been challenged on them?  Or is Bill asked to remain silent and ask Jane to go away, or if she gets aggressive, ask Con Security to handle her?

This is a reason why a lot of people with extreme views may be disinvited from a lot of events.  The Event simply doesn't want to deal with these potential issues.  Even if Bill is on his best behaviour, someone else might not be.  Bill might slip up, Bills "gaming products" might actually be a promotion of his views.  It's easier to go find someone who makes good gaming products who _isn't_ a racist, a sexist, or whatever.


----------



## dragoner

Sadras said:


> Absolutely, but presumably though Larry would be discussing his RPG and any games/books in the works, even perhaps painting of miniatures. Again it is a gaming con.
> 
> People are also able to disagree in civil conversation. The little exchange I saw between his open letter to GRRM and GRRM's reply on his Not a Blog was quite respectful. Kudos to them.




Yes and no, I know from having to moderate people on facebook it's one of my least favorite things to do, people do things that draw a huge number of complaints and it's easier to just kick them from the group rather than to try to discuss it. I'm sorry for it to be that way, but experience says usually try to talk about it doesn't work. Time gives context to events too, I'm sure many are getting emotional fatigue from dealing with right wingers that have been energized by the last election, and it gets difficult to parse who exactly said or believes what. Hanging out with nazis isn't cool (like vox day), and I have literally heard people say that hitler is the white MLK; my response is no, I don't even want to or am going to deal with that.

So while they are running a con and doing a bunch of other stuff, then issues arise, and where there is no stopping the discussion of other things people have said, rather than limiting discussion only to painted minis, which is probably impossible. Then they get called a bunch of names such as cowards which means they aren't going to change their response back to re-invite him.


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> The problem becomes, how much can we separate Larry, or _anyone_ with extreme views, from their work and their business. When do we start asking how much of their _personal_ views are reflected in their business?




Good question. I would imagine it should be taken on a on a case by case basis given that we should be judged as individuals.
But lets spin the question around who decides what extreme views are? How much outrage is too much given the sock puppet technology available these days? And who is 'we' who will be asking about someone's personal views?



> If we know that Imaginary Bill is, in his off time, a white supremacist, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view?  Even subtly?  If Imaginary Bill doesn't value women, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view as well?  How do we differentiate Bill's Patriarchal White-Majority Human-Dominated world from his own views, and from the fact that _that's what a lot of D&D worlds look like_?  Did Bill make his world that way because he's trying to promote his views through his work, consciously or unconsciously, or did he make his world that way because that's the material he drew inspiration from?  Did he draw inspiration from that particular material _because_ it appealed to his ideology?




I think I asked a similar question much earlier in the thread where I mentioned my table recently discussed whether we separate the work/art from the person. Weinstein from the movies, Allen from his movies, Cosby from the show...etc 
Who is not going to watch The Usual Suspects anymore because of Kevin Spacey?
The majority of the replies on Enworld I believe were that we have to separate the artist from their work. It is a hard question. What is your take? 



> Lets say that we invite Imaginary Bill to a Con.  What _preemptive_ restrictions do we put on him, knowing the things he believes and espouses in his off time?  Do we apply a general "Hey man, that other stuff, don't talk about it here?"  Or do we stay silent?  What do we do if Imaginary Jane approaches Bill and starts taking him to task over his white supremacist views?  Is Bill allowed to promote his views now that he's been challenged on them?  Or is Bill asked to remain silent and ask Jane to go away, or if she gets aggressive, ask Con Security to handle her?
> 
> This is a reason why a lot of people with extreme views may be disinvited from a lot of events.  The Event simply doesn't want to deal with these potential issues.  Even if Bill is on his best behaviour, someone else might not be.  Bill might slip up, Bills "gaming products" might actually be a promotion of his views.  It's easier to go find someone who makes good gaming products who _isn't_ a racist, a sexist, or whatever.




I'm not going to discuss the defense of Imaginary Bill since you have already painted him to be a racist/sexist whatever. There is no discussion of whether he is or isn't. Your example paints him that he unequivocally IS. 
Furthermore I cannot fully answer your question without going against board rules and discussing the politics and violence which took place during the election process, because based on the type of questions you're asking one might argue that you wish cities and town halls to disinvite political candidates because of possible violent Imaginary Janes because its easier....  A lot can be said about creating that kind of environment.

Even on this board we have various people who feel pretty strongly about certain D&D editions or playstyles, they view certain editions/playstyles as an extreme perversions of the game. Enworld's rules are, all types are allowed on here but conversation regarding the editions and people's D&D ideology has to remain civil and not inflammatory. Enworld doesn't demand all supporters of 3.x refrain from signing up or even discussing 3.x 
They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?


----------



## Particle_Man

Bagpuss said:


> Legally no, but for Origins Harassment Policy (which is all that matters in this case) yes.
> 
> "Harassment is generally any behavior that alarms, threatens, or *excessively annoys another person or group*."
> 
> I think they would class it as annoying.




So that would be the rule that Larry broke.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:
			
		

> They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?




Well, someone earlier mentioned that Origins harassment policy included something along the lines of, "annoy other people", so, yup, he absolutely has broken that rule.  It's an easy rule to break and, they can choose to enforce it in any way they see fit, that is absolutely their right to do so.

And, please note, he can still GO to the convention.  There's nothing saying that he cannot attend.  He just isn't being given a pulpit or a position which makes it appear that the convention endorses his actions.  Because, as a guest of honor, it gives the appearance that his actions are in keeping with what Origins represents.

So, what's the problem here?  Origins obviously feels that his views do not represent what Origins wants to be associated with.  They likely feel this way because after they announced giving him a place of honor, they got a bunch of angry push back.  Which runs foul of their "don't annoy people policy" and end of story.

You most certainly can hold any view you want.  That's absolutely your right.  But, you do not have the right to be endorsed by anyone else.


----------



## Sunseeker

Sadras said:


> Good question. I would imagine it should be taken on a on a case by case basis given that we should be judged as individuals.
> But lets spin the question around who decides what extreme views are? How much outrage is too much given the sock puppet technology available these days? And who is 'we' who will be asking about someone's personal views?



I think it's fairly clear what views are extreme or not.  We shouldn't be sitting around wondering if exterminating, or even deporting all the non-white people is a "normal" viewpoint.  We had that discussion back in the 1940s.  Which view do you think won?

And yes, to some degree it is a case-by case basis.  But if Larry or Imaginary Bill has a blog where they promote white supremacist views we're not really "asking" them about their views.  They're volunteering them.  We can make decisions based on that information, or update decisions we already made with new information.



> I think I asked a similar question much earlier in the thread where I mentioned my table recently discussed whether we separate the work/art from the person. Weinstein from the movies, Allen from his movies, Cosby from the show...etc
> Who is not going to watch The Usual Suspects anymore because of Kevin Spacey?
> The majority of the replies on Enworld I believe were that we have to separate the artist from their work. It is a hard question. What is your take?



I can't, in good conscience, separate views from products.  Because when I watch the Cosby show, money from airing that show supports Cosby.  So by viewing the Cosby show I have supported a rapist.  Doesn't matter if there's someone in the middle.  My views generated him income.  So I don't watch those shows.

There is a degree of separation of course.  Lets say that a rapist or a neo-nazi was an electrician involved in setting up the lights for Infinity War.  (it's entirely possible given the number of people involved in movie production)  That's different than say, not watching it before you found out one of the main actors did something bad.  

But I don't think that's helpful in this context.  In the context of game creation, people like Jeremy Crawford or Larry are _directly_ involved in the creation of the product, and the end result is a _direct_ result of their vision for it.  



> I'm not going to discuss the defense of Imaginary Bill since you have already painted him to be a racist/sexist whatever. There is no discussion of whether he is or isn't. Your example paints him that he unequivocally IS.



Yes I'm sorry wasn't that the point?  We know XYZ person has crazy views, should they be invited if they can keep their views to themselves?  Did I misread your point there?



> Furthermore I cannot fully answer your question without going against board rules and discussing the politics and violence which took place during the election process, because based on the type of questions you're asking one might argue that you wish cities and town halls to disinvite political candidates because of possible violent Imaginary Janes because its easier....  A lot can be said about creating that kind of environment.



I'm sure you can figure out a way.  We've been discussing politics this entire thread.  The mods have been generally lenient on it.



> Even on this board we have various people who feel pretty strongly about certain D&D editions or playstyles, they view certain editions/playstyles as an extreme perversions of the game. Enworld's rules are, all types are allowed on here but conversation regarding the editions and people's D&D ideology has to remain civil and not inflammatory. Enworld doesn't demand all supporters of 3.x refrain from signing up or even discussing 3.x



I don't know.  I've ignored a much larger number of people on this board than any other, because the ignore feature actually lets me IGNORE them instead of replacing thier post with a big teaser saying: HEEEEEEY! THAT GUY YOU DON'T LIKE JUST POSTED, CLICK HERE TO VIEW THEIR POST!  Kinda defeats the point ya know?

Most of the remaining people are people with whom even when I disagree with, it's a polite disagreement.  The people I have on ignore, like Maxperson, it is impossible to disagree with civilly.  



> They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?



I know neither the rules for Origin nor their invitation process nor the particulars of the Larry case and therefore cannot comment.

This is why I used Imaginary Bill.


----------



## Maxperson

dragoner said:


> Not at all, it would be insane for them to let their con become the vehicle for someone to spew venomous hate.




That wasn't what was going to happen, though.  He wasn't there to discuss his personal views, whatever they may be.  He was there to discuss his writing.



> Using free speech to destroy free speech is irrational.



As opposed to destroying free speech by limiting speech?


----------



## Maxperson

Would someone please tell @Shidaku that it's poor form to block someone and then talk about that person.  I happen to have many civil disagreements with people on the forum.  If someone is unable to have a civil discussion with me, it's generally because that person drags the conversation down.


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> I think it's fairly clear what views are extreme or not.




Sometimes, I mean people have different levels of sensitivity about a variety of issues. There are various people that get disinvited from college campuses because x many people determined that the speaker invited was perpetuating an extremist view. I'm afraid I have to disagree things are not so clear.



> But if Larry or Imaginary Bill has a blog where they promote white supremacist views we're not really "asking" them about their views.  They're volunteering them.  We can make decisions based on that information, or update decisions we already made with new information.




Sure, but we need to make sure it does not become fact due to someone's half-assed conclusions/presumptions (and this seems to happen a lot). 



> Yes I'm sorry wasn't that the point?  We know XYZ person has crazy views, should they be invited if they can keep their views to themselves?  Did I misread your point there?




I would agree that if someone came out and outed themselves as a racist then yes disinvite that person, but that is a ridiculously easy example. It is rarely that easy and clear cut. Real life is usually a lot messier. Is Larry a racist? If yes, show me. Is Larry a sexist? If yes, show me. I will support your decision to disinvite him 100%. Subjectivity makes things a lot messier.
Some people feel that he should be disinvited because of Sad Puppies, others do not. Obviously the Con gets to choose.



> I'm sure you can figure out a way.  We've been discussing politics this entire thread.  The mods have been generally lenient on it.




Politics can be polarising. Certain speakers at various locations can cause upsets - even if they behave completely civil. Does that mean politicians should not be allowed to campaign or be disinvited from certain interviews because of feelings or because people do not know how to behave? 

To return this to topic 
You are saying because Imaginary Jane might act out we cannot invite Imaginary Bill to Con.
Yet, imaginary Jane can wear skimpy Cosplay clothing to Cons despite the fact that Imaginary Bill might act out?

So in the first instance Imaginary Bill is at fault even if he did nothing wrong.
And in the second instance Imaginary Bill is at fault because he did something wrong.
At which point does Imaginary Jane take responsibility for her own actions?



> I don't know.  I've ignored a much larger number of people on this board than any other, because the ignore feature actually lets me IGNORE them instead of replacing thier post with a big teaser saying: HEEEEEEY! THAT GUY YOU DON'T LIKE JUST POSTED, CLICK HERE TO VIEW THEIR POST!  Kinda defeats the point ya know?




True. At Conventions we are free ignore the boring or annoying speakers (for us) and not go to their stalls/presentations.
Ignoring is different to disinviting.



> I know neither the rules for Origin nor their invitation process nor the particulars of the Larry case and therefore cannot comment.




Cool. It was answered by others.


----------



## pemerton

George Orwell did not think that Stalinism should be tolerated. In fact, he cooperated with the British secret service to identify Communists.

Whether he was right or wrong to do so seems OT for this thread. But the fact that he did tells us about his views on toleration.


----------



## Sunseeker

Sadras said:


> You are saying because Imaginary Jane might act out we cannot invite Imaginary Bill to Con.



I was questioning what the appropriate response was.  If we asked Bill not to talk about his political opinions, then my first reaction would be to go after Jane.  If Bill then goes and shoots his mouth off anyway, my reaction would be to remove both of them.


> Yet, imaginary Jane can wear skimpy Cosplay clothing to Cons despite the fact that Imaginary Bill might act out?



You're about two sentences away from asking why if that girl didn't want to get raped she wore skimpy clothing.  Whoever is acting out is the problem.  Pretty simple.



> So in the first instance Imaginary Bill is at fault even if he did nothing wrong.



Well, technically in my situation his attendance was predicated on keeping his opinions to himself.



> At which point does Imaginary Jane take responsibility for her own actions?



See above.



> True. At Conventions we are free ignore the boring or annoying speakers (for us) and not go to their stalls/presentations.
> Ignoring is different to disinviting.



Are we?  Maybe if that speaker is isolated to a pocket dimension (like a private room).  But it's not like their stalls _stop existing_ when we stop looking at them, this isn't Schrodinger's Con Booth.  It's not like they're not _audible_ because we don't care what they have to say.  It's not like their booth may not be located right next to the booth I actually want to go to.  We can't put a big "CENSORED" bar over him when we look in that general direction.  

When I went to college we had several visits from the "God hates fags!" types.  Loud, obnoxious, confrontational.  Their only purpose there was to get someone to fight them and then sue the university for not protecting their rights.  They weren't there for "honest debate", they weren't there for "free expression".  They were there to be assclowns.

At what point do we stop and say "Does this one guy's right to be an assclown really trump these thousands of other people's rights not to put up with his garbage."?

Because that's what *YOU* are also defending.  The right for some clown to be a clown, to piss off as many people as they can, to _try_ and start fights, for no other reason than to play the victim afterward.


----------



## Sadras

dragoner said:


> Yes and no, I know from having to moderate people on facebook it's one of my least favorite things to do, people do things that draw a huge number of complaints and *it's easier* to just kick them from the group rather than to try to discuss it.




I do not believe anyone will disagree with you on this, it is easier.



> Time gives context to events too, I'm sure many are getting emotional fatigue from dealing with right wingers that have been energized by the last election, and it gets difficult to parse who exactly said or believes what.




Do you realise what you have just implied here? Essentially, you're essentially condoning an attitude of _I'm too tired to understand you so please leave._



> Hanging out with nazis isn't cool (like vox day), and I have literally heard people say that hitler is the white MLK; my response is no, I don't even want to or am going to deal with that.




No comment.



> So while they are running a con and doing a bunch of other stuff, then issues arise, and where there is no stopping the discussion of other things people have said, rather than limiting discussion only to painted minis, which is probably impossible.




See what I did above. I limited discussion.



> Then they get called a bunch of names such as cowards which means they aren't going to change their response back to re-invite him.




Were they called a bunch of names for initially inviting him?


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> I was questioning what the appropriate response was.  If we asked Bill not to talk about his political opinions, then my first reaction would be to go after Jane.  If Bill then goes and shoots his mouth off anyway, my reaction would be to remove both of them.




and



> You're about two sentences away from asking why if that girl didn't want to get raped she wore skimpy clothing.  Whoever is acting out is the problem.  Pretty simple.




Agree.



> Well, technically in my situation his attendance was predicated on keeping his opinions to himself.




Yes and I'm all for that, but that wasn't even an option offered. Not that it had to be, the Con is free to do as it likes.



> Are we?  Maybe if that speaker is isolated to a pocket dimension (like a private room).  But it's not like their stalls _stop existing_ when we stop looking at them, this isn't Schrodinger's Con Booth.  It's not like they're not _audible_ because we don't care what they have to say.  It's not like their booth may not be located right next to the booth I actually want to go to.  We can't put a big "CENSORED" bar over him when we look in that general direction.
> 
> At what point do we stop and say "Does this one guy's right to be an assclown really trump these thousands of other people's rights not to put up with his garbage."?
> 
> Because that's what *YOU* are also defending.  The right for some clown to be a clown, to piss off as many people as they can, to _try_ and start fights, for no other reason than to play the victim afterward.




Sorry this took me a while to understand in context. I'm not defending him from being an assclown or anyone for that matter. I do not support the Sad Puppies. Like I said before this is a Gaming Con.

Again I ask do you want to ban him from _all life?_ Because you do not only not want to see him as a speaker but also from  having a stall/booth and presumably you do not want to see him anywhere at the Con.

I mean if that was what you were getting at, why did you even bother with the whole Imaginary Bill scenario? I suspect it is easier for you to make a case about Imaginary Bill having every -ism, ist and -phobic under the sun than actually prove that Larry is anyone of these things he is being accused of being.


----------



## Sunseeker

Sadras said:


> Sorry this took me a while to understand in context. I'm not defending him from being an assclown or anyone for that matter.
> 
> Again I ask do you want to ban him from _all life?_ Because you do not only not want to see him as a speaker but also from  having a stall/booth and presumably you do not want to see him anywhere at the Con.



If the behaviour is severe enough or repeated enough, sure.



> I mean if that was what you were getting at, why did you even bother with the whole Imaginary Bill scenario? I suspect it is easier for you to make a case about Imaginary Bill having every -ism, ist and -phobic under the sun than actually prove that Larry is anyone of these things he is being accused of being.



Probably because I _already said I'm not up to date on the Larry case_.  How many more times do you want me to repeat it?

Stop trying to warp the conversation by forcing the issue to be about this one guy.  I'm frelling sick of it.  I'm about two more "What about Laaaarrrryyy!????"s from putting you on my ignore list for it.

I know how these games work.  I ain't playing.


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> If the behaviour is severe enough or repeated enough, sure.




Revisiting your initial post to me I feel then I have answered your query between my posts to you and to @_*dragoner*_.

Specifically (1) dealing with what is considered extreme can be murky and (2) that whose outrage is more important, those that want him/x or those that don't. And yes it is easier to just uninvite him/x. It is not necessarily the correct choice. 



> Stop trying to warp the conversation by forcing the issue to be about this one guy.  I'm frelling sick of it.




The difference between your example about the kids and this Larry/x - is that they (the kids) had nothing to gain but being clowns, while this guy/x is at a Gaming Con presumably to sell/promote his products. There ended.



> I'm about two more "What about Laaaarrrryyy!????"s from putting you on my ignore list for it.
> I know how these games work. I ain't playing.




Good grief. Where am I?


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> The only speech that has been limited is that which either directly causes or has a high likelihood of directly causing physical harm to someone, like yelling fire in a theater.




That's not a true statement. How strong is your interest in factual accuracy? Who is more committed to factual accuracy: you, or your ex-girlfriend?

As an example: In 1986, the Daily Star published a story about Jeffrey Archer's relationship with a prostitute. Archer sued for libel, a court ruled in his favor, and the court required the Daily Star to fork over £500,000. When a court can require someone to pay up, in that amount, *that's a legally imposed limit on the freedom of speech*. Another court reviewed Archer's testimony in the libel case, and then in 2001 convicted Archer of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Archer spent two full years in jail. That's *also* a limit on speech, and it's not a case of imminent danger such as shouting "movie!" in a crowded firehouse.

More generally: other forms of illegal speech include consumer fraud, filing a false police report, forgery, seditious libel, false statements about one’s military decorations, various forms of pornography, and publication of classified information. There are numbers which are illegal to publish, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (I would provide an example, of those numbers, except that including the number in this post would violate the EN World terms of service.) And that's just in the English-speaking world; Germany has a law about Holocaust denial.

I'm noticing an interesting pattern in this thread, about who limits their assertions by factual accuracy, and who doesn't, and where they stand on the harassment issue.

Participants in this thread have mentioned the distinction between "governmental limits on speech" and "private entity limits on speech" more than once. (So did J.S. Mill in an excellent essay "On Liberty.") When the BWBBB conflates the two, then walks back their claim when refuted and sets up new debate goalposts, then conflates the two again, then walks back when refuted again, then moves the goalposts again... lather, rinse, repeat... what conclusions can we draw from that pattern of behavior?


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Who is more committed to factual accuracy: you, or your ex-girlfriend?




Aaaaand we're done.


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> But if Larry or Imaginary Bill has a blog where they promote white supremacist views we're not really "asking" them about their views.  They're volunteering them.  We can make decisions based on that information, or update decisions we already made with new information...






shidaku said:


> I know neither the rules for Origin nor their invitation process nor the particulars of the Larry case and therefore cannot comment. This is why I used Imaginary Bill.




A prudent choice. Correia isn't supremacist, nor sympathetic to white supremacism. He does not mind doing business with people across differences of skin color, nor does he care about the color of who's living next door. He won't be the next lawyer to flip out and threaten to call ICE just because people speak Spanish to each other, consensually, in a restaurant. (Yes, this happened recently, in New York City.) His nominations for the Sad Puppies slate included writers of color.

Correia once mocked someone, extensively, for talking about race as an issue in the TRPG community. IMO his tone was pointedly uncharitable; but his thesis, insofar as he had one, boiled down to "get over your feelings and roll the dice", rather than "accept your genetic inferiority". He allied with Vox Day, a fervent white supremacist, but that's more because Correia was trolling as hard as he could possibly troll, rather than because he agrees with Vox Day on race issues. Correia's words: "I nominated Vox Day because Satan didn’t have any eligible works that period." Correia's position on race is far from *my* position, but at least he isn't calling for the revival of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

Not that Origins asked my opinion on him, when making *their* decision, which was *theirs* to make, about who *they* (Origins) wanted, at the microphone, at a lectern, as *their* Guest of Honor, in a room which *they* rented from a convention center. Who decides the limits of free speech? Well, *they* do, on *their* platform. (Within, that is, the limits of the law, which puts many restrictions on speech, such as fraud, elections-related advertising, slander, pornography, seditious libel, assassination threats, phone call spam, and did I mention certain prime numbers?)

Correia's past conduct at cons which include awards ceremonies, though, now THAT is a deal-breaker. I imagine that the Origins planners reviewed how the Sad Puppies affected Worldcon, and the personal lives of the Worldcon planners, and they concluded "That's not what I want for us and for our convention". Or as John Ward, executive director of Worldcon said, "We focus on fun and gaming, not discourse and controversy."

So, no matter what anyone here thinks about how Origins handles decisions about their guest of honor, here's my question: how can Origins handle harassment, on site, during the con, related to those decisions? And what would you willingly give up, if you attended Origins 2018, towards the goal of a harassment-free conference?


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> Aaaaand we're done.




If you mean that you and she are done, then I hope that is, indeed, a factually accurate statement. You make factually accurate statements, now and then... among other ones.



Maxperson said:


> He wasn't there to discuss his personal views, whatever they may be. He was there to discuss his writing.




Wow, now THAT was a recklessly non-factual assertion; quite a whopper. When has Correia ever discussed his writing, without also, in the process, discussing his personal views?

(Answer that question, directly and factually, if you can! One example would suffice, but two examples - with citations or links - would be a slam-dunk come-back.)

The first chapter of the first book in the Monster Hunter series lays out Correia's views on firearm rights, and then has his protagonist use a concealed-carry firearm (a pistol in an ankle holster) to kill a werewolf. Which is fine by me, killing that werewolf was legitimate self-defense, but it's a thinly-veiled example of putting one's personal politics into one's genre fiction. He almost said "the only way to stop a bad werewolf, is a good guy with a gun". Almost.


----------



## Eltab

Samurai said:


> View attachment 97711



+1
I don't know that I would want to help organize a Con … twice.  Look how much grief comes your way due to other folks being idiots.


----------



## jasper

http://monsterhunternation.com/ look at todays post.


----------



## Obryn

Maxperson said:


> In other words, people should be tolerant and inclusive unless they say or do something you disagree with, then it's okay to be intolerant and non-inclusive.
> 
> Tolerance and inclusiveness are like free speech.  They are all or nothing.  If there is even a single instance where you don't tolerate, don't include or disallow speech, there is no such thing tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech.



This post is dumb in _profound _ways.


----------



## dragoner

I wouldn't touch Correia with 10' pole after reading that blog, he really has no one to blame but himself for getting disinvited.

Free Speech is only free in regards to criticizing the government, it is decidedly not free with obscenity, incitement, libel laws from day one. So as an analogy it doesn't work as the original poster thinks it does.


----------



## Catulle

dragoner said:


> I wouldn't touch Correia with 10' pole after reading that blog, he really has no one to blame but himself for getting disinvited.
> 
> Free Speech is only free in regards to criticizing the government, it is decidedly not free with obscenity, incitement, libel laws from day one. So as an analogy it doesn't work as the original poster thinks it does.




But the US is perfect on speech! I read it online this one time...


----------



## Sunseeker

jasper said:


> http://monsterhunternation.com/ look at todays post.




Wow, it's almost like I didn't actually _need_ to know anything about the case to take a wild stab in the dark what kind of character Larry is.


----------



## Hussar

Good grief, is there some sort of checklist that folks get when they write conservative stuff?  Did I call my opponent a special snowflake?  Check.  Did I use the term SJW at least three times, check.  Did I call them hypocrites?  Check.  On and on and on.  But, the biggest piece that caught my eye was part of the "fisking" (a term I just learned the definition of) of the Tor.com article that apparently is at the heart of the disinvitation:



> George is upset that the employees of the Indianapolis convention center, an establishment which is located in the downtown area of a major American city is staffed by locals who are demographically different than the masses of attendees from all over America who have the disposable income to travel across the country just to engage in their hobbies.




Pretty much says it all right there doesn't it.  Gencon, in this article, is "demographically different" because the attendees have disposable income.  Translation, only white people have the money to go to Gen Con so, of course, Gen Con is mostly white.   

Look, it's pretty simple.  While people are free to hold whatever political view tickles their fancy, there are no protections from repercussions of holding that particular view.


----------



## Gradine

Wow, take a few days away from the thread and it gets way de-railed every which way. Some thoughts

1) "But the alcohol is the real problem!" is the Brock Turner defense. Don't use the Brock Turner defense.
2a) I would not, and know many, many others who also would not, ever attend any Con or any other event in which anyone involved that whole stupid Puppies debacle.
2b) "I'm not a white supremacist, I only _signal-boost_ white supremacists because I'm trolling!" is not a defense that anybody should ever buy. Nobody who willingly associates with Vox Day, specifically _against_ women or POC authors whose books include themes of race, gender, or sexuality, no less, deserves even the most basic shred of respect. That Origins even invited Correira in the first place makes the con suspect to me. 
3a) How many times do we need to get bringing up Popper's Paradox of Tolerance before people figure it out? You don't earn any brownie points for pointing out the supposed "hypocrisy" of not tolerating the intolerant. We've kind of had this figured out since at least 1945.
3b) The best (and so far, only) honest attempt at a critique of Popper's Paradox I've read here is that keeping freedom open let's us know who the "truly racist" people are or that it encourages them to stew and fester alone in their own hatred. I'll cover those points in reverse order.
3c) An isolated bigot is a lot less dangerous than one with an enthusiastically supportive community. The idea that people who are isolated are more likely to "snap" and enact violence is a pervasive one, true, but it's also completely a myth. Especially with the advent of the internet, there are entire communities where members are encouraged to act out on their violent impulses. If you only heard the term "incel" after the recent Toronto killings, know that this is actually second such mass killing perpetrated by an active member of an online incel community; the first killer is often worshipped in these communities, but most people still treat them like a joke.
3d) Let's talk about "real racists" for a second. First, there's the image of what a "real racist" is; the angry, frothing-at-the-mouth lifetime-KKK-member, like the kind you'd see at the Charlottesville protest; see also Day, Vox. Second, there's your vocal "supporters". The "I don't support racism, but they're actually bringing up a good point about..." crowd. The signal boosters. The normalizers. Like, say, somebody in a position of authority stating their belief that there were good people on "both sides" of the Charlottesville protect. The folks who espouse those same beliefs but understand that it's not all that socially acceptable to publicly declare them anymore; see also the otherwise completely meaningless "distinction" between Sad and Angry Puppies. Then there are the silent nodders. Maybe they agree completely. Maybe they disagree completely. But they see nothing wrong with giving the "real racists" just as much of a platform and agency and space as anyone else. Just another point of view that needs to be respected even if disagreed with. The "racists get freedom of speech" crowd, grossly misunderstanding, as always, what freedom of speech actually means in re: our actual rights as citizens engaging with both public and private entities.

Tell me, which of these groups is likely to be the largest? Which of these groups is mostly likely to harbor unconscious biases, most likely to make the decisions that not only affect their lives but the lives of others, potentially based on those unconscious biases? Furthermore, how many people in that largest group are most likely to be the swayed when racism (and sexism, et al) becomes normalized and legitimized as just "another point of view"?

The answers to those questions is the reason why Popper's Paradox holds true, by the way.


----------



## Bagpuss

dragoner said:


> Free Speech is only free in regards to criticizing the government...




No it isn't, it covers a lot more than than just criticism of the government. However, yes there are limits of speech, like the ones you mentioned.


----------



## dragoner

Hussar said:


> Good grief, is there some sort of checklist that folks get when they write conservative stuff?




Now I had to go look up fisking also. meh. It is like their use of language is devolving into a use of grunts, hoots, and whistles, to where the only translation will be: *indecipherable bollocks*. It is almost there all ready.


----------



## Riley37

Gradine said:


> 1) "But the alcohol is the real problem!" is the Brock Turner defense. Don't use the Brock Turner defense.




Amen. In Turner's words: "Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.”

Turner appealed his conviction; he still sees himself as the real victim here. Iunno whether Turner has an alternate theory about who's responsible for what happened to Jane Doe's clothing and to Jane Doe's private parts. How could a man be so stubborn in casting himself as the real victim? If you review this thread, you might find an example!



Gradine said:


> 2b) "I'm not a white supremacist, I only _signal-boost_ white supremacists because I'm trolling!" is not a defense that anybody should ever buy. Nobody who willingly associates with Vox Day, specifically _against_ women or POC authors whose books include themes of race, gender, or sexuality, no less, deserves even the most basic shred of respect.




Well put. If Correia said that, I would believe him, as a literal statement. Then I would question the wisdom and the ethics of going that far for the sake of trolling.

Churchill and FDR didn't signal-boost Stalin; they sent him weapons and ammunition. Doesn't mean they agreed with Stalin on anything other than fighting the Third Reich. Correia made that analogy, during his years as Sad Puppies leader. That was unwise and wrong. At no point were the stakes so high, nor any danger so proximate, that boosting Vox Day's career was an acceptable and ethical price to pay, in the cause of Correia's attack on the Secret Masters of Fandom at Worldcon.

General lesson, for purposes of this thread: beware anyone who sees themselves as a Holy Warrior waging holy war against "feminazis" or "political correctness". They might not have any ethical inhibitions on how low they'll go.


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> Amen. In Turner's words: "Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.”
> 
> Turner appealed his conviction; he still sees himself as the real victim here. Iunno whether Turner has an alternate theory about who's responsible for what happened to Jane Doe's clothing and to Jane Doe's private parts. How could a man be so stubborn in casting himself as the real victim? If you review this thread, you might find an example!
> 
> 
> 
> Well put. If Correia said that, I would believe him, as a literal statement. Then I would question the wisdom and the ethics of going that far for the sake of trolling.
> 
> Churchill and FDR didn't signal-boost Stalin; they sent him weapons and ammunition. Doesn't mean they agreed with Stalin on anything other than fighting the Third Reich. Correia made that analogy, during his years as Sad Puppies leader. That was unwise and wrong. At no point were the stakes so high, nor any danger so proximate, that boosting Vox Day's career was an acceptable and ethical price to pay, in the cause of Correia's attack on the Secret Masters of Fandom at Worldcon.
> 
> General lesson, for purposes of this thread: beware anyone who sees themselves as a Holy Warrior waging holy war against "feminazis" or "political correctness". They might not have any ethical inhibitions on how low they'll go.




What a lot of people miss is that "trolling the libs" is pretty much the calling card of the alt-right.  So anyone who aligns with a white supremecist to troll others has basically just announced what side of the fence they're standing on.


----------



## jasper

shidaku said:


> What a lot of people miss is that "trolling the libs" is pretty much the calling card of the alt-right.  So anyone who aligns with a white supremecist to troll others has basically just announced what side of the fence they're standing on.




hahhha ahhaha broad freaking brush there sweet pea.


----------



## Sadras

shidaku said:


> What a lot of people miss is that "trolling the libs" is pretty much the calling card of the alt-right.  So anyone who aligns with a white supremecist to troll others has basically just announced what side of the fence they're standing on.




Unholy alliances happen all the time - the most obvious being in politics. 

EDIT: Anyways none of this is going to curb harassment unless men start calling men on their crap. It is really the only true solution.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Pretty much says it all right there doesn't it.  Gencon, in this article, is "demographically different" because the attendees have disposable income.  Translation, only white people have the money to go to Gen Con so, of course, Gen Con is mostly white.




While Correia was a jerk about it in his article, he is correct that white people have more disposable income on average than hispanic and black people.  There are all kinds of articles and studies that back that up.  What he doesn't state that I can recall(at least in the 2/3ish of his article that I read) is that asian people have more disposable income than white people, and he doesn't get into the demographics of race when it comes to gaming, which probably plays a larger role than income.  He was also correct that people seek out jobs local to them, so the racial make-up of employees at the venue Gen Con is held at will be similar to the local racial demographic.


----------



## Sunseeker

jasper said:


> hahhha ahhaha broad freaking brush there sweet pea.




Awww, does my brush strike a little too close to home?


----------



## Hussar

Gimme a break.  Saying that there is a racial problem in gaming is like saying rain is wet.  Arguing that there is no problem is willfully ignorant at best.  But, of course, admitting that the history of gaming has been almost entirely white doesn't fit in with the narrative that it's just a bunch of special snowflakes virtue signaling and would mean that the whole Sad Puppies thing would be revealed for the pile of garbage that it is.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Gimme a break.  Saying that there is a racial problem in gaming is like saying rain is wet.  Arguing that there is no problem is willfully ignorant at best.  But, of course, admitting that the history of gaming has been almost entirely white doesn't fit in with the narrative that it's just a bunch of special snowflakes virtue signaling and would mean that the whole Sad Puppies thing would be revealed for the pile of garbage that it is.




Perhaps you can quote where I said that the history of gaming isn't mostly white.  I can't find it anywhere.  Maaaaaybe, that was part of the "demographic of gaming" that I mentioned.  I'm not convinced that it's mostly white due to racism, but it is and has been mostly white, though that's slowly changing.


----------



## jasper

shidaku said:


> Awww, does my brush strike a little too close to home?



And this is why both sides need to be trolled. To toughen up the dandruff flakes.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Perhaps you can quote where I said that the history of gaming isn't mostly white.  I can't find it anywhere.  Maaaaaybe, that was part of the "demographic of gaming" that I mentioned.  I'm not convinced that it's mostly white due to racism, but it is and has been mostly white, though that's slowly changing.




Seriously?  Not due to racism?  

Ok, let's list the ways shall we?  We have the grandfather's of the genre, all those kind folks who Gygax listed in the Appendix of the DMG as the sources of inspiration for the game, who, number among them, some of the most virulent bigots in print.  

And that's just the start.  Let's not forget, what, about thirty years of art and art direction that was pretty much 100% white.  Granted, that's been shifting in the last decade or so, but, there was about forty years before that where the art was certainly not inclusive.

I could go on, but, what's the point?  Like I said, it's a pretty known issue.  But, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], my point wasn't really directed at you, but, at Correia.  That was the source of the "gimme a break".


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's list the ways shall we?  We have the grandfather's of the genre, all those kind folks who Gygax listed in the Appendix of the DMG as the sources of inspiration for the game, who, number among them, some of the most virulent bigots in print.




That doesn't mean that people chose to play the game for racist reasons.  



> And that's just the start.  Let's not forget, what, about thirty years of art and art direction that was pretty much 100% white.  Granted, that's been shifting in the last decade or so, but, there was about forty years before that where the art was certainly not inclusive.[./quote]
> 
> The people playing the game where primarily white, and inclusion wasn't as in the front of people's minds like it is today(which is why it's changing).  That doesn't mean that they were trying to keep minorities out.  I believe that it was more ignorance, than racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could go on, but, what's the point?  Like I said, it's a pretty known issue.  But, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], my point wasn't really directed at you, but, at Correia.  That was the source of the "gimme a break".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  It was immediately after my post with no mention of him specifically, so it seemed like it was aimed at me.
Click to expand...


----------



## dragoner

shidaku said:


> What a lot of people miss is that "trolling the libs" is pretty much the calling card of the alt-right.  So anyone who aligns with a white supremecist to troll others has basically just announced what side of the fence they're standing on.




Pretty much, and it's not our problem to parse what kind of nazi they are. The whole attacking woke people is another terrible idea of theirs, since that is attacking younger and people of color basically, hurting the entire RPG hobby.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Let's not forget, what, about thirty years of art and art direction that was pretty much 100% white.  Granted, that's been shifting in the last decade or so, but, there was about forty years before that where the art was certainly not inclusive.



It was more than "not inclusive". Peoples who the Monster Manual described as non-white (eg dwarves, gnomes) have routinely been depicted as white in D&D art.



Hussar said:


> Saying that there is a racial problem in gaming is like saying rain is wet.



There is an active half-orc thread on another sub-forum of these boards that I think exemplifies some of the casual ways in which fantasy RPGing can have both race problems and problems with sex and gender. The thread involves casual discussion of degrees of orc blood, and casual discussion of such things as victorious (and implicitly male) warriors taking (and, by implication, having sex with, consensual or not) the wives of the warriors they defeat.

It's one thing to read, and draw upon (as part of the literary heritage of fantasy), works that are casual in these sorts of respects. But I think it's something else to re-enact them in the games we play. I remember fairly recently re-reading the Iliad and reflecting on how challenging it would be to teach to a class with young women in it (given the completely casual way the poem describes the victorious warriors taking women as booty, and - presumably - having sex with them without regard to consent). I can't see how that sort of approach to RPG play and "worldbuilding" creates an environment that women can be expected to find welcoming. That's not to deny that some women may be comfortable with a gaming environment involving that sort of shared fiction, given their own tastes and engagement with the literary heritage; but I would expect that a more typical experience would be to find it offputting at least.

A similar sort of thought occurred to me recently reading Vincent Baker's pirates RPG Poison'd. It's a bit tasteless but has some interesting elements, and I wouldn't mind playing a session or two - but the fact that "sodomy" is there in the list of sins, which contribute to a pirate PC's "devil" score, makes me balk at suggesting it to my group (which includes gay men). I'm not suggesting that Vincent Baker is a homophobe; and his writing style, play descriptions and the like suggest a certain degree of irony in the way he and his gaming friends engage with these various legacy elements of the heritage our games are built on. But I'm not sure that, by default, a gay man is going to find that ironic. I think it's as, or more, likely just to be an unhappy feature of the game.


----------



## Kobold Boots

These problems are not gaming problems.  They are people problems.  The only way to get them out of gaming is to get rid of the people.

That said here are some rules to live by.  They're pretty common sense.

1. Ask someone out date, and get to know them before sharing naked photos.  Lowers your chances of becoming a sex offender because well, chances are you've had consensual sex by that time.
2. Don't assume that someone is something based on the color of their skin and get to know them before laughing with them about stereotypes.  Lowers your chances of being a racist.  The key there is "with them"
3. There are laws about this sort of thing.  Know them.  When you feel yourself getting close to a line, you're already too far.  Step back.  Most people know what wrong is intuitively, don't get close to it.

There are plenty of people in the world that have no problem with these three basic things.  There's absolutely zero reason to make excuses for the rest.  

Note: I didn't read the entire thread.  122 pages about religion, race and politics really doesn't do much for me, but seeing the nonsense on the first page made me wish to reply.

Be well
KB


----------



## Bagpuss

Hussar said:


> Seriously?  Not due to racism?
> 
> Ok, let's list the ways shall we?  We have the grandfather's of the genre, all those kind folks who Gygax listed in the Appendix of the DMG as the sources of inspiration for the game, who, number among them, some of the most virulent bigots in print.




Please tell me what inclusive, progressive authors were writing about fantasy at the time? That might of been sources of inspiration. Please explain how it makes the original AD&D game racist.

http://www.digital-eel.com/blog/ADnD_reading_list.htm - List for reference (in case anyone is interested)

Clearly because Call of Cthulhu RPG is based on H.P.Lovecraft's work it must be really racist, and only white supremacists would go anywhere near it. 



> And that's just the start.  Let's not forget, what, about thirty years of art and art direction that was pretty much 100% white.




Perhaps because the vast majority of people playing and illustrating were white at the time, you tend to illustrate your own culture, that isn't a deliberate attempt to keep other people out.

Taking it back to Conventions: Certain men not caring enough about personal hygiene isn't a deliberate attempt to keep women out of conventions, but it will have that effect, it isn't sexism.  



> Granted, that's been shifting in the last decade or so, but, there was about forty years before that where the art was certainly not inclusive.




Just not making a conscious effort to be more inclusive is not enough to brand something racist. Especially if you are talking about something 30+ years old.


----------



## Bagpuss

shidaku said:


> Awww, does my brush strike a little too close to home?




I think there is a little concern that it is thrown around a bit too liberally nowadays. It has a proper meaning and shouldn't be applied to half the people you see the press using it for. For example "trolling" doesn't make someone Alt-right.


----------



## LordEntrails

pemerton said:


> ...
> It's one thing to read, and draw upon (as part of the literary heritage of fantasy), works that are casual in these sorts of respects. But I think it's something else to re-enact them in the games we play. I remember fairly recently re-reading the Iliad and reflecting on how challenging it would be to teach to a class with young women in it (given the completely casual way the poem describes the victorious warriors taking women as booty, and - presumably - having sex with them without regard to consent). I can't see how that sort of approach to RPG play and "worldbuilding" creates an environment that women can be expected to find welcoming. That's not to deny that some women may be comfortable with a gaming environment involving that sort of shared fiction, given their own tastes and engagement with the literary heritage; but I would expect that a more typical experience would be to find it offputting at least....




This reminds me when about 20 years ago I read a translations of the Authurian tales. One done prior to current social norms and done in a more academic, and probably accurate, way. I remember one of the tales(was it Lancelot's?)  going around the land staying with the local nobles, and sleeping with their daughters, whether they wished it or not. Something today we would simple call rape.

We have to own up that not only the fiction that our games are based upon, but everything in our society that draws upon history, draws upon, and reflects that at one time we had different social norms than we do today.

"Gone with the Wind", considered by most a great American classic, in both the book and movie, clearly has a non-consensual sexual relationship in it. A scene that is still often considered "very romantic" by many men and women.

Human history is long. Knowledge and morals evolve and change. We need to understand the norms for society for when something was written or a behavior occurred. It doesn't make things right or wrong, but it is important, critical, to understand context.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> It was more than "not inclusive". Peoples who the Monster Manual described as non-white (eg dwarves, gnomes) have routinely been depicted as white in D&D art.




Indeed. But it’s also true that the art was pretty cheaply done in D&D’s early days and it’s hard to establish skin color well with black and white line art. 
On top of that, you have the issue of the diversity of the artist pool and their own tendencies toward putting themselves or what is familiar to them in their art.
There’s a whole structure of racial disparity in the hobby that probably cannot be connected to intended outcomes, but which takes intentional, overt behavior to ameliorate. Same with sexism (though I’m a bit less convinced that some of the behavior driving the disparity wasn’t intentional).


----------



## Particle_Man

jasper said:


> And this is why both sides need to be trolled. To toughen up the dandruff flakes.




I disagree. Trolling may or may not occasionally serve good purposes, but toughening people up is not among them. Indeed that seems instead to serve the toxic masculinity that can lead to sexual harassment.


----------



## Particle_Man

Also, it is really hard not to see the black skinned evil Drow elves and not think it racist.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Particle_Man said:


> I disagree. Trolling may or may not occasionally serve good purposes, but toughening people up is not among them. Indeed that seems instead to serve the toxic masculinity that can lead to sexual harassment.




I'd argue that some folks do need a thicker skin.  However, I don't think it's the responsibility of or appropriate to generalize as to who needs to toughen up and who doesn't.  Fact is, many of the folks who are only now coming out about being treated poorly "toughened up" for years and it doesn't make what happened to them any more appropriate or easier to deal with.

I do have a problem with the activist troll that sees problems everywhere and goes out of their way to address them.  (I just bought milk.. why is the chocolate milk on the bottom shelf.. that kind of nonsense) but that's not what we're talking about here.  I guess I'd characterize it as "be careful when you cry foul and if you're not the person that was directly wronged to begin with think about what you do to correct it before you explode."

Be well
KB


----------



## dragoner

Trolling turns into trolls trolling trolls as all the reasonable people in the middle leave and the conversation dies.


----------



## Riley37

dragoner said:


> Trolling turns into trolls trolling trolls as all the reasonable people in the middle leave and the conversation dies.




Yes, which is victory for the trolls, because Status Quo Defenders win whenever they derail any discussion of change, such as "how could there be less harassment at cons".

Jasper's argument about toughening people up is the most blatant pro-harassment argument in this thread (so far), because it's all about doing something to someone *without their consent* and without regard to the target's objections. "She really wanted it, she was just maintaining plausible deniability against slut-shaming!" "It's for your own good, you need some trolling to toughen you up!" "But her cosplay was ASKING FOR IT!" The unifying theme here, is that the initiator decides unilaterally, without a veto option for the recipient. (Consent culture is like an AND logic gate. Output is 1 only when *both* input bits are 1.)

A guy named Ry Liam Smith had a son, named Lennoxx Eddy. Smith punched, pinched and headbutted his son to "toughen him up". Eventually, at the age of four months, the son died. Smith's sweetie, Lilly Eddy, wanted to take the boy to the doctor, but Smith said no. I don't know Smith's exact words. Wild speculation: "None of that libtard feminazi weaksauce for MY little man! You can't make me, because I wear the pants in this house!" 

If you ever see Jasper at a con, well, now you know what side he's on, if you hadn't already picked him up on your Identify: Friend or Foe.

For those who fact-check: https://www.frasercoastchronicle.co...led-baby-boy-sentenced-to-nine-years/3314652/


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> Please tell me what inclusive, progressive authors were writing about fantasy at the time? That might of been sources of inspiration. Please explain how it makes the original AD&D game racist.




Poul Anderson is on the list. His "Three Hearts and Three Lions" is on the list. It literally starts with the protagonist punching Nazis. One of the main friendships in the novel is between a Northern European guy and a Moor. Somehow Gygax read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and brought "trolls regenerate sword wounds but not fire damage" into D&D, while missing Anderson's deeper message, across MANY stories, that the value of humanity is all about the choices you make, as explicitly contrasted with race (or species) and other fixed-at-birth settings. That's one way racism works: as a filter for narratives.

Andre Norton is on the list. Andre gorram Norton. Gygax read Andre Norton, possibly including "Witch World" and still write D&D rules in which PCs are clerics and druids (the 1E illustrations show druids as all male) but "Black Hags" are monsters. Now that's a strong narrative filter.

Zelazny and the Amber novels are on the list. The Amber novels, in which a major theme, is that the protagonist begins to recognize the worth of the lives of non-Amberites, and recruits an interracial army, and values the lives of his soldiers in a way no other Amberite would consider. Zelazny also wrote "Lord of Light", in which one can choose the gender of one's reincarnation, and that can make or break marriages and romances, depending on the flexibility of one's sexuality. QED.



Bagpuss said:


> Perhaps because the vast majority of people playing and illustrating were white at the time, you tend to illustrate your own culture, that isn't a deliberate attempt to keep other people out.




"You tend"? Speak for yourself, buddy. Ethnocentrists tend to illustrate their own cultures. That argument has been intellectually bankrupt ever since Xenophanes pointed out that one can notice *and overcome* the blind spot of ethnocentricism:

"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
...
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."



Bagpuss said:


> Especially if you are talking about something 30+ years old.




Right, because in the 1970s, there's no WAY anyone could be choosing between the message of MLK and the message of George Wallace. Ideas about racial equality hadn't been invented yet!


----------



## dragoner

Riley37 said:


> Jasper's argument about toughening people up is the most blatant pro-harassment argument in this thread (so far), because it's all about doing something to someone *without their consent* and without regard to the target's objections. "She really wanted it, she was just maintaining plausible deniability against slut-shaming!" *"It's for your own good, you need some trolling to toughen you up!"* "But her cosplay was ASKING FOR IT!" The unifying theme here, is that the initiator decides unilaterally, without a veto option for the recipient. (Consent culture is like an AND logic gate. Output is 1 only when *both* input bits are 1.)




Trolling toughens people up is pretty dumb. Like, what, are we now in the world of internet tough guys? Yea.

Cons need uniformed, professional security, to help stop harassment. Not only do they present a visible person to go to for help, but their presence helps prevent harassment because the bullies/harassers will be afraid to do their crimes in front of security.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Indeed. But it’s also true that the art was pretty cheaply done in D&D’s early days and it’s hard to establish skin color well with black and white line art.



I'm thinking of colour illustrations eg Dragon magazine covers.



billd91 said:


> On top of that, you have the issue of the diversity of the artist pool and their own tendencies toward putting themselves or what is familiar to them in their art.
> There’s a whole structure of racial disparity in the hobby that probably cannot be connected to intended outcomes, but which takes intentional, overt behavior to ameliorate.



Well, the choice about how to paint/draw the figures in illustrations was probably intentional. The broader consequences and implications I assume were simply not expressly considered and just taken for granted.



Bagpuss said:


> Perhaps because the vast majority of people playing and illustrating were white at the time, you tend to illustrate your own culture, that isn't a deliberate attempt to keep other people out.



I assume most of the illustrators were American. Are non-white people not participants in those artists culture?

I live in a country (Australia) in which advertising images - still, but even moreso say 2+ years ago - are considerably more white than the people I see in the city around me. That's not because the makers of those images belong to an all-white culture!


----------



## Sadras

Particle_Man said:


> Also, it is really hard not to see the black skinned evil Drow elves and not think it racist.




It is important to mention not all people view Drow that way. Some of us view Drow as aliens. The thought of equating Drow to racism never crossed my mind until I joined these boards.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Riley37 said:


> A guy named Ry Liam Smith had a son, named Lennoxx Eddy. Smith punched, pinched and headbutted his son to "toughen him up". Eventually, at the age of four months,




The above is a case of untreated mental illness, reinforced by an abusive upbringing with a completely helpless victim.  While I see where you're going it's really off-point when discussing harassment in gaming.  You might want to reconsider the example you hang your hat on as it reflects more on your headspace than Jasper's.  (Not defending Jasper).

Be well
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots

Riley37 said:


> Right, because in the 1970s, there's no WAY anyone could be choosing between the message of MLK and the message of George Wallace. Ideas about racial equality hadn't been invented yet!




That's not the point.  The point is that in the 1970s a significantly larger percentage of the population grew up during an era when it was perfectly normative to segregate via race regardless of whether or not anyone actually hated someone due to it.  Of course when you look at that era through the eyes of someone 30-40 years later, everything is "blantantly racist".

Just because we are more enlightened regarding equality than previous generations, it doesn't give us the right to be just as ignorant about cultural relativity when we discuss a topic.  If you want society to advance we have to actually be better than our parents and not replace one stupid way of looking at things with another stupid way of looking at things.

Be well
KB


----------



## Rygar

Kobold Boots said:


> I do have a problem with the activist troll that sees problems everywhere and goes out of their way to address them.  (I just bought milk.. why is the chocolate milk on the bottom shelf.. that kind of nonsense) but that's not what we're talking about here.  I guess I'd characterize it as "be careful when you cry foul and if you're not the person that was directly wronged to begin with think about what you do to correct it before you explode."
> 
> Be well
> KB




Basically, this whole thread?  Because it went that direction dozens of pages ago and we're well into the point where left wing political activists are doing their level best to out-enlighten the last poster.  It doesn't help that the modding is the worst of the activist trolling, they shut down the comments on the actual article because the conversation wasn't going the way they wanted it to, but let it go here because they're getting the response they wanted since this thread is pretty much just left wing activists now.  

If the mods actually wanted to prevent the discussion from being held, they'd have shut this thread down two days ago, so we can be pretty certain that they want a very specific set of comments.

Regardless, I'll be banned shortly, because the goal of this site is to remove all centrist and conservatives from even being around gaming and only allow RPG themed left wing politics.


----------



## Gradine

I know multiple people across the political spectrum who both are and are not hip to the notion of "inclusion". Obviously overall there's a slant to both the support and the opposition, particularly given who the loudest voices in any given environment are most likely to be (especially in the US, but it seems like it's starting to spread through Europe as well), but there's nothing about inclusion that is particularly politically exclusionary. 

Your opposition to efforts to reduce harassment in gaming communities based on sex, gender, sexuality, or race do not make you right-wing. It makes you an hole, and the site has pretty explicit instructions regarding it.


----------



## Bagpuss

Particle_Man said:


> Also, it is really hard not to see the black skinned evil Drow elves and not think it racist.




Well yes if you only look at the colour of their skin. No tell a lie even if you look at just the colour of the skin they are pretty different except for Dinka people from South Sudan. Most people try to judge on more than just skin colour.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Rygar said:


> Basically, this whole thread?  Because it went that direction dozens of pages ago and we're well into the point where left wing political activists are doing their level best to out-enlighten the last poster.  It doesn't help that the modding is the worst of the activist trolling, they shut down the comments on the actual article because the conversation wasn't going the way they wanted it to, but let it go here because they're getting the response they wanted since this thread is pretty much just left wing activists now.
> 
> If the mods actually wanted to prevent the discussion from being held, they'd have shut this thread down two days ago, so we can be pretty certain that they want a very specific set of comments.
> 
> Regardless, I'll be banned shortly, because the goal of this site is to remove all centrist and conservatives from even being around gaming and only allow RPG themed left wing politics.




It may or may not be the entire thread.  Like I said previously, when I see a thread skewing in a certain direction where things don't have value in my opinion, I don't read the entire thread.  I will however, usually comment on whatever it was that got my attention to begin with.

On moderation.  Mods are people.  They have opinions.  They're not robots.  If you're going to frequent a site, and participate in conversation, it's expected that you do your research as to what will fly and what won't.  If you don't like what flies when things get hairy, don't read the threads that get hairy and you won't get your knickers in a bunch when you don't agree with what's going on.

As a long time admin of another site like this one (with much less going on and in a different niche market) the worst thing you can do as a mod is stifle conversation.  The best thing you can do is let steam blow off by giving people a voice, so long as what's going on isn't breaking any laws or truly hurtful.  I also wouldn't want this sort of conversation on my main page.  So once this goes sideways, it makes perfect sense that the article would come off the splash and the mods would let it continue.

The goal of this site is to further gaming and probably make a bit of profit here and there.  The fact that the people on the site are largely liberal isn't a site problem.  It's just the way the vocal part of the community is.

Note: I used to be strongly liberal, then I got to own property and became socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  I don't want to see people unfairly affected by racism, but I'm not going to be ashamed of the past either.  Society changes, the folks who don't change with it are dumb.  Mostly because if whatever bad thing was actually happening to them, they'd be the first ones complaining about how things needed to change.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I have always felt the most problematic aspect of the Drow was the "Evil matriarchy". The Drow do not look anything human. That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> Poul Anderson is on the list. His "Three Hearts and Three Lions" is on the list. It literally starts with the protagonist punching Nazis. One of the main friendships in the novel is between a Northern European guy and a Moor. Somehow Gygax read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and brought "trolls regenerate sword wounds but not fire damage" into D&D, while missing Anderson's deeper message, across MANY stories, that the value of humanity is all about the choices you make, as explicitly contrasted with race (or species) and other fixed-at-birth settings. That's one way racism works: as a filter for narratives.




Yeah it's not like D&D has lots of different races co-operating together...



> Andre Norton is on the list. Andre gorram Norton. Gygax read Andre Norton, possibly including "Witch World" and still write D&D rules in which PCs are clerics and druids (the 1E illustrations show druids as all male) but "Black Hags" are monsters. Now that's a strong narrative filter.




Lots of D&D monsters are derived from European myths, like the witches from Shakespeare's plays were. There is nothing racists about using centuries of mythology, that you grew up with. 



> Zelazny and the Amber novels are on the list. The Amber novels, in which a major theme, is that the protagonist begins to recognize the worth of the lives of non-Amberites, and recruits an interracial army, and values the lives of his soldiers in a way no other Amberite would consider. Zelazny also wrote "Lord of Light", in which one can choose the gender of one's reincarnation, and that can make or break marriages and romances, depending on the flexibility of one's sexuality. QED.




You really expect a leap from a tactical wargame to a gender-fluid RPG in one step? Really. Do you not understand progress is generally a gradual thing? 




> "You tend"? Speak for yourself, buddy. Ethnocentrists tend to illustrate their own cultures. That argument has been intellectually bankrupt ever since Xenophanes pointed out that one can notice *and overcome* the blind spot of ethnocentricism:
> 
> "But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
> or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
> horses like horses and cattle like cattle
> also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
> of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
> ...
> Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
> Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."




That actually supports that people identify with themselves and the familiar more often. He seems to be pointing out a truth.



> Right, because in the 1970s, there's no WAY anyone could be choosing between the message of MLK and the message of George Wallace. Ideas about racial equality hadn't been invented yet!




And AD&D has a section on enforced segregation where exactly?

Can we get back on topic?


----------



## Sunseeker

Bagpuss said:


> I think there is a little concern that it is thrown around a bit too liberally nowadays. It has a proper meaning and shouldn't be applied to half the people you see the press using it for. For example "trolling" doesn't make someone Alt-right.




No.  Because what you and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] are missing is that while _everybody trolls_ only the Alt-Right has made trolling those specific groups that disagree with their ideology _part of their ideology. _ It is their primary method of attack, and they do so aggressively and brutally.  People who support white-supremacists and nazi propaganda and such _as part of campaign_ to troll people are universally on the alt-right.

You're free to disagree with me of course, but I'm going to fall back on my political science background and my years of being involved with this sort of stuff to say I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> Please tell me what inclusive, progressive authors were writing about fantasy at the time?




I then write a post, in which I do exactly as Bagpuss requested. I list some of the inclusive, progressive authors who were writing about fantasy at the time; specifically, authors whom Gygax lists as influences.



Bagpuss said:


> You really expect a leap from a tactical wargame to a gender-fluid RPG in one step? Really. Do you not understand progress is generally a gradual thing?




And there's Bagpuss, taking my answer to his question, as if I had made a *demand* about how Gygax wrote D&D in the 1970s. He takes the answer to my question as a pretext to insult my understanding of gradual progress. This is clearly trolling; the question was a set-up, not a good-faith request for information; but is it over the line, into harassment?

That's not my decision to make, so I'm alerting those who make that decision.


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> And AD&D has a section on enforced segregation where exactly?




If I provided the page number of the relevant book, would you respond with "Oh, okay, thanks for the information"?

Or would you open fire on the answer, attack it as a digression from the topic, and continue trolling?  If you're upset at answers to your questions, and bash answers to your questions as off-topic, then you're free to ask different questions. Or were you upset and enraged that there *was* an answer to your question, because answers other than "there were none!" didn't fit your narrative?

If you have any thoughts on what cons can do to address harassment, if you have any willingness to step up as part of the solution, then hey, post accordingly.


----------



## Umbran

shidaku said:


> ... while _everybody trolls_ only the Alt-Right has made trolling those specific groups that disagree with their ideology _part of their ideology. _



_


Folks, please bring it back to gaming, or let it drop.  We are not here to discuss the broader political world.  If you find that too restrictive, I'm sorry, but there are other venues for that sort of discussion.

Thanks everyone.  _


----------



## Riley37

(posted, saw mod post, redacted in response to mod post)


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> And there's Bagpuss, taking my answer to his question, as if I had made a *demand* about how Gygax wrote D&D in the 1970s. He takes the answer to my question as a pretext to insult my understanding of gradual progress. This is clearly trolling; the question was a set-up, not a good-faith request for information; but is it over the line, into harassment?




So have "be annoying" as part of an harassment policy, claim asking questions is annoying "trolling", claim only the trolling the left is a sign some one is alt-right (ah sorry wasn't you that said that).

QED Bagpuss is an Alt-Right troll.

Actually I'm genuinely interested how you can infer it is racist because authors on the reading list included bigots, then moments later use the same reading list, to show all the progressive authors that were his influence as well.



> That's not my decision to make, so I'm alerting those who make that decision.




Then call the mods...



> If you have any thoughts on what cons can do to address harassment, if you have any willingness to step up as part of the solution, then hey, post accordingly.




Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.


----------



## Lylandra

Bagpuss said:


> Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.




Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying. 

For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why. 

So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem. 

Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.


----------



## Bagpuss

Lylandra said:


> Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying.
> 
> For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.
> 
> So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem.
> 
> Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.




I agree with to an extent, however you see stuff like at VidCon where just sitting in the front row is 'threatening', or above where just asking questions is 'annoying', and someone will claim that constitutes harassment and call security.

We can all (again "all" being limited to those with a sense of empathy) agree 'cat-calls' are harassment. Then you get in looking at what point does it become leering? The two extremes of a quick glance, and stalking round a con taking pictures are clear, but it doesn't depend on the actions of the person looking as to when it crosses the grounds into making the person viewed feel uncomfortable, it depends on their feelings. Considering that as you say some people are too afraid to say anything, with no indication as to when that line has been crossed how is the person looking to know when to moderate their behaviour.

Generally these are skills that people pick up socialising during the course of their life, but not everyone does. In what has historically been a male dominated space, you are probably going to find a higher proportion of people that haven't picked up those skills with dealing with the opposite sex.


----------



## Riley37

Bagpuss said:


> QED Bagpuss is an Alt-Right troll.




Well, now you've said something I can agree with! Common ground at last!

"Just kidding - but am I?" or "This is what the feminazis are really saying" are classic staples of the alt-right troll.



Bagpuss said:


> Then call the mods...




Well, I *guess* that's agreement, of a sort. I'm actually rather obedient, whenever you order me to do something, that I already told you I was doing. (Were you unclear on whom I meant, by "those who make that decision"?)



Bagpuss said:


> Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.




I should have framed my request more specifically; I said "what cons can do to address harassment", and I should have said "deter harassment". You're on topic, but only insofar as "address" includes "enable".

If I understand correctly, your top priority here is protecting con staff, from the burden of receiving, investigating and suspending or dismissing false claims. Here's the sort of conversation which could ensue:

Con staff: "Hey Riley, someone told us you were annoying them. Do you know what that might be about?" Riley: "Nothing comes to mind. I have a hard time reading body language and facial expressions, though, so I'll ask a friend, to keep an eye out for anyone showing annoyance in my company, just in case. Or maybe it's that guy who was annoyed that I got first place in the glagtery contest, because he thought he should have won? Could be a grudge." Con staff: "Thanks, Riley, for a direct answer, and hurray for asking your friend to help. If we hear anything more specific, then we might have more questions for you later, but otherwise, game on and enjoy the con."

Con staff, reporting to con director: "I talked with Riley. He mentioned the glagtery contest. I'll check on whether the second place winner was also the person who filed the complaint. If so, the complaint is probably BS. I'll keep an eye on both of them, and if anyone *else* complains about Riley then I'll pursue further."

I do not share your strong interest and top priority on preventing that sort of conversation from happening at cons.

I am more interested in stopping strings of behaviors such Fannon's self-admitted behavior. According to his own statements he was sometimes merely annoying, and in other cases, escalated from there. People often misbehave in minor ways, whether they're intentionally testing the waters, or whether they're starting to form habits, which may, over a process of years, build up into misbehavior.

I've heard a third-party description of Fannon maintaining a Falstaff-style persona at cons, which in some cases went badly awry. That's consistent with his own descriptions of his behavior; it's consistent with his denials, and also consistent with his eventual apology. If Fannon's own descriptions are accurate, and if he could go back in time, then I'm confident he'd go back to 2014 or so, to some incident in which he merely *annoyed* someone with overzealous attention, and tell *himself* to nip it in the bud. Heck, at this point, what price would Fannon willingly pay, for the opportunity to stop himself at "annoying", so that he never reached "harassing"?

I can't imagine you, Bagpuss, reading what Fannon said, because then you would cede narrative control. For those who care, though, about what's *actually been a problem at cons*, a keyword search for "Sean Fannon apology" will find his final statement quickly enough (possibly after wading through his initial denials).

For what it's worth, I'm erring on the side of believing Fannon's apology more than his denials; and also erring on the side of taking the behaviors for which he apologizes, as the worst behavior he practiced. Maybe it wasn't that bad, maybe it was much worse, I don't know. In *any* scenario that's at all consistent with Fannon's apology, if cons had accepted complaints of annoying behavior, and investigated them directly, then that would not have caused a worse outcome, and IMO could have resulted in a much better outcome, for Fannon and for others. Particularly for the women whose gaming experience suffered from his leers, his overly-familiar compliments, and his intrusion into personal space (again, those are Fannon's descriptions of his own behavior).

Is there anyone who *hasn't* identified themselves as pro-harassment or an alt-right troll, who sees advantage in changing con policies, to allow annoying behavior, whether in forms such as sexual innuendo (if you know what I mean), or in forms such as placing large orders with sales booth staff, then cancelling just as it's time to pay? (A casual example, drawn from commentary among Correia fans. I'd bet my dice bag that at least one person at either Origins or GenCon will do that to the game company which Correia suggested as a legitimate target.)


----------



## Lylandra

ardoughter said:


> I have always felt the most problematic aspect of the Drow was the "Evil matriarchy". The Drow do not look anything human. That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"




Me too. But that's easily said as a white woman from europe and I would rather see how black people think about the drow than to make a hasty judgment. (Especially if all other fairer-skinned elves lean towards the good alignments, so the "they are not human" argument only works so far.) 

And yeah, Chaotic evil + *organized* society doesn't really match up. Yay for Eberron, I guess. 

(Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against an evil matriarchy when there are several non-evil ones in your setting. And when some of the partiarchal systems are branded as evil as well. I have nothing against a flock of bad dark-skinned people when there are many examples of good-aligned, highly developed societies with dark skin. Heck, I have nothing against revealing, stripperific outfits as long as it isn't so obviously designed to cater to the male gaze alone. )


----------



## Bagpuss

ardoughter said:


> I have always felt the most problematic aspect of the Drow was the "Evil matriarchy". The Drow do not look anything human. That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"




Yeah but I suspect that depiction comes from the whole spider aspect of Drow, and the fact that a lot of female spiders are larger than the male, and will often eat the males before, after or even during an attempt to mate. Rather than being based on a human matriarchal society, or some attempt to be sexist.


----------



## Riley37

Kobold Boots said:


> The above is a case of untreated mental illness, reinforced by an abusive upbringing with a completely helpless victim.  While I see where you're going it's really off-point when discussing harassment in gaming.




So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.

Smith's attitude of "I'll toughen you up, like it or not, ready or not", is the same attitude which Jasper promotes. The difference isn't depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia; the difference is that Smith applied the principle (a) while "under the influence" (intoxicated) and (b) to a boy less than a year old. If Jasper brings that attitude to a con, and if that attitude influences con culture, then you tell me, KB: will that attitude correlate with more incidents of harassment at cons, or fewer incidents? 

Hypothetical scenario: someone, with whatever incentive would suffice (eternal life? plus free pizza if it goes well?), hires you to bring an a 18-year-old, Daphne, to her first  gaming con. She's pondering whether to sign up for game A or game B on Saturday afternoon. You overhear the DM of game A talking with his buddies about how snowflakes need to get over themselves, so his game is gonna push their comfort zones, with none of these wussy "content notices" or "trigger warnings", and make them into real men. Game B sounds like a generic "recover the Lost Orb of McGuffin" adventure. Do you assess Game A and Game B as equal risk of harassment for Daphne?

Keep in mind, free pizza, for life, for *eternal* life, is on the line. If Daphne turns to you for advice, then how actively would you recommend one game over the other?

Hypothetical variation: you overhear the DM of Game B saying something to HIS buddies, which is so scary, that it tilts you away from B, and causes you to recommend Game A. You tell me - what was it? What factor is *more* directly relevant to harassment risk, than the combination of machismo with overt disregard for boundaries?

Does anyone else have a suggestion, of what the DM of Game B could say, which seems more likely to end in harassment, than what the DM of Game A said?

Asking because I'm off to a gaming con this weekend, hoping to apply whatever I can learn from your posts in this thread. I've been to a few and it takes me effort to think of a B which is plausible and also still worse than that particular A.


----------



## Sadras

When was the last time someone mentioned how racist/xenopohic and patriarchal ALL the pale elves are? 
That is why I never play an elf. 
#HumanSupremacy FTW.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Riley37 said:


> So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.
> 
> Smith's attitude of "I'll toughen you up, like it or not, ready or not", is the same attitude which Jasper promotes. The difference isn't depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia; the difference is that Smith applied the principle (a) while "under the influence" (intoxicated) and (b) to a boy less than a year old. If Jasper brings that attitude to a con, and if that attitude influences con culture, then you tell me, KB: will that attitude correlate with more incidents of harassment at cons, or fewer incidents?
> 
> Hypothetical scenario: someone, with whatever incentive would suffice (eternal life? plus free pizza if it goes well?), hires you to bring an a 18-year-old, Daphne, to her first  gaming con. She's pondering whether to sign up for game A or game B on Saturday afternoon. You overhear the DM of game A talking with his buddies about how snowflakes need to get over themselves, so his game is gonna push their comfort zones, with none of these wussy "content notices" or "trigger warnings", and make them into real men. Game B sounds like a generic "recover the Lost Orb of McGuffin" adventure. Do you assess Game A and Game B as equal risk of harassment for Daphne?
> 
> Keep in mind, free pizza, for life, for *eternal* life, is on the line. If Daphne turns to you for advice, then how actively would you recommend one game over the other?
> 
> Hypothetical variation: you overhear the DM of Game B saying something to HIS buddies, which is so scary, that it tilts you away from B, and causes you to recommend Game A. You tell me - what was it? What factor is *more* directly relevant to harassment risk, than the combination of machismo with overt disregard for boundaries?
> 
> Does anyone else have a suggestion, of what the DM of Game B could say, which seems more likely to end in harassment, than what the DM of Game A said?
> 
> Asking because I'm off to a gaming con this weekend, hoping to apply whatever I can learn from your posts in this thread. I've been to a few and it takes me effort to think of a B which is plausible and also still worse than that particular A.



"Special prize to any to any of you guys who manage to "score" with one of the chicks in the game." If you wanted something even more alarming than the first example.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lylandra said:


> Me too. But that's easily said as a white woman from europe and I would rather see how black people think about the drow than to make a hasty judgment. (Especially if all other fairer-skinned elves lean towards the good alignments, so the "they are not human" argument only works so far.)



I guess you are right but the gray tones and highlights of the Drow artwork I have seen signaled non human to me more so than the paler elves.





Lylandra said:


> (Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against an evil matriarchy when there are several non-evil ones in your setting. And when some of the partiarchal systems are branded as evil as well. I have nothing against a flock of bad dark-skinned people when there are many examples of good-aligned, highly developed societies with dark skin. Heck, I have nothing against revealing, stripperific outfits as long as it isn't so obviously designed to cater to the male gaze alone. )




Well the stripperific clothes never bothered me , being the target audience and all, but boob armour, or obvious gaps in armour and high heels on wilderness or warrior types can really set me off on a rant.


----------



## Maxperson

Lylandra said:


> For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.




That would be annoying, yes.  What it wouldn't be, though, is harassment.  



> So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem.




This I agree with.  They need to be educated and the behavior needs to stop.



> Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.



The penalty for being annoying shouldn't go up just because some people are afraid to say something about it.  I'm also curious how an intermediate agent even comes on the scene to mediate if nobody says anything about the annoying person.  A mediator would have to be called to the scene.


----------



## Caliburn101

If I see any of this sexist behaviour at Games Expo in a couple of weeks I am going to call it out loudly, in front of the person doing it, right there.

The kind of people who indulge in this kind or crapola are fundamentally cowards, and don't like the light shined on their behaviour.

Hell, I might take a portable floodlight and loudspeaker!!


----------



## Maxperson

Bagpuss said:


> Yeah but I suspect that depiction comes from the whole spider aspect of Drow, and the fact that a lot of female spiders are larger than the male, and will often eat the males before, after or even during an attempt to mate. Rather than being based on a human matriarchal society, or some attempt to be sexist.




Right.  The matriarchal aspect, as well as the color of drow skin, have nothing to do with any real world racial or gender issues.  I think finding issues with drow based on race and gender are examples of the type mentioned above; the activist being offended that chocolate milk is on the bottom shelf at the grocery store.


----------



## Umbran

Lylandra said:


> Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying.
> 
> For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.
> 
> So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying...




The policy should be kept in context of how the event applies the policy, in a real-world, practical sense.  There's always this message that "OMG, someone is going to get banned from the con for life because of an innocent mistake!"  That's probably not the most likely result.  

When I was involved in reporting an incident a couple of years ago, the con had collected *several* reports, and put them together to establish a pattern of behavior, before they finally booted the perpetrator.  For the "annoying" clause, if you are "annoying" the con might do the stunningly intelligent thing of _giving you a warning_ - this would significantly mitigate the "don't know what is annoying" issue, as the Convention will tell you, and give you an opportunity to speak with the staff about it.  If you then establish a pattern of not being able to avoid annoying people at the convention, they might choose to take other action.

This goes for most elements of the policy, not just "annoying".  If you make racist comments at a gaming table, or follow a woman around and not take "no" for an answer, you might expect the convention to warn you before they outright eject or ban you.

You know, like how most of the moderation on these boards happen -unless you're egregious, you get a warning of how you're over the line before we boot you from a thread or ban you.


----------



## Bagpuss

Riley37 said:


> Well, now you've said something I can agree with! Common ground at last!
> 
> Well, I *guess* that's agreement, of a sort. I'm actually rather obedient, whenever you order me to do something, that I already told you I was doing. (Were you unclear on whom I meant, by "those who make that decision"?)




No, I was pointing out unfortunate tactic of certain members yourself included, of rather than debating, relabelling discussion as harassment, false labelling the opposition then crying harassment and calling for moderation.

No, I was not identifying myself as Alt-Right I was calling out the inferences that you have made.

Although I am pretty sure you understood that.

--------------

I do think there is a concern if harassment is extended beyond the more legal definition.

If you say harassment is just being annoying I feel that's too broad. I find some people's laugher annoying, or people stacking dice while we are playing (introducing a farcical example).

Fannon's actions would fall under the legal (using UK law which is probably harsher than US in this case, but it's the one I'm more familiar with) definition.  *Of course being a private convention you don't need to establish legal proof to act, which is helpful in these circumstances because it is hard to prove.* A few of important clauses in the legal description of harassment are 

A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant *protected characteristic*, and

the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Also

In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

A being the harasser and B being the victim in this case. 

Protected characteristics in the UK are - age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

So getting annoyed over dice stacking would fail because it doesn't target a protected characteristic, but also because it isn't reasonable to assume it violates my dignity or creates a hostile environment.

Thankfully a number of harassment policies I've seen tend to call out aspects of the legal definition (such as protected characteristics) as examples, most also add the clause "not limited to" when listing examples, which it is fine with a private venue, and also because if you do spell stuff out in detail there will be people that look for the loopholes.


--------------

More seriously though if you do stack your dice, don't get annoyed when I bang the table.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Kobold Boots

Riley37 said:


> So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.




1. Harassment in a gaming environment is not "beat up your four month old" level abuse.
2. Therefore it's wholly inappropriate to bring into the conversation to reinforce whatever point you're making.
3. I'm personally disgusted that the comparison ever made it to the thread.  It's a red line.
4. If you must know the answer to the question you've asked, do the research on the article before using it, instead of just posting a news link.

That is the message (1 & 2) I want delivered to you based on what I wrote.  There is no justification you could present as a retort that would be logical so I'm ending the conversation on this point between you and I with this post.

Be well.
KB


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> Eh .... then again ...
> 
> Look, a lot of things can be hard to see because you're just too used to it. Playing Drizzt isn't bad because it's necessarily racist, for example; it's bad because it sucks like a gnome paladin.
> 
> But there can be systemic issues lurking beneath the surface; the whole "dark race equals evil" to start with. And per this artwork, sometimes the implicit is explicit. It doesn't mean that someone who thinks drow are cool is a racist*, but it does mean that sometimes it helps to pay attention to these sorts of things.
> 
> TLDR; acknowledging something can be problematic isn't the same as banishing it, and it doesn't mean that someone who enjoys it is a racist. I happen to really like HP Lovecraft; but I also know that he was a raging racist, and there are stories of his that I would not, and could not, allow kids to read until the were old enough to properly contextualize them.
> 
> *Just deeply disturbed, in a "I like dex builds, rapiers, and eating paste" kind of way.




That cover isn't bad because drow are black or matriarchal.  Those two things aren't the issue as I mentioned in my post.  What's wrong with that cover is that it is portraying women in a sexist way like they did to pretty much ALL females, regardless of race or color during that time period.  The wrong of that cover isn't a drow thing.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Eltab

Edit: original post was reaction to something said prior to Umbran's post #1249 in orange ink.


----------



## Eltab

Caliburn101 said:


> If I see any of this sexist behaviour at Games Expo in a couple of weeks I am going to call it out loudly, in front of the person doing it, right there.



I don't have a good "feel" for what will convince you to charge into a given interaction between two other people, but do be aware that if you make YOURSELF a pest, the Con may have something unpleasant to say to you about it.


----------



## Eltab

lowkey13 said:


> Hmmmm.... I suggest taking another look at the cover. That's not, in fact, the most serious issue with it.




A) The bodyguards are behind, not in front of, the body they are supposed to be guarding.
B) Most caves are too chilly to wear just a bikini.


----------



## Imaculata

Maxperson said:


> That cover isn't bad because drow are black or matriarchal.  Those two things aren't the issue as I mentioned in my post.  What's wrong with that cover is that it is portraying women in a sexist way like they did to pretty much ALL females, regardless of race or color during that time period.  The wrong of that cover isn't a drow thing.





I don't feel that having a cover with sexy women is inherently sexist. Nor do I feel this cover in particular is sexist. Tacky, maybe... but not sexist. It seems in line with what you'd see on the cover of Heavy Metal back in the day. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Bagpuss

lowkey13 said:


> Hmmmm.... I suggest taking another look at the cover. That's not, in fact, the most serious issue with it.




Is it that  David C. Sutherland III name isn't mentioned even though he co-wrote Queen of the Demonweb pits?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

Caliburn101 said:


> If I see any of this sexist behaviour at Games Expo in a couple of weeks I am going to call it out loudly, in front of the person doing it, right there.
> 
> The kind of people who indulge in this kind or crapola are fundamentally cowards, and don't like the light shined on their behaviour.
> 
> Hell, I might take a portable floodlight and loudspeaker!!




While the few women commenting on this thread have mostly fallen silent, I do want to say it wasn't because I felt run off. I have been following, and a number of times refrained because terms are used that are unfamiliar to me, and another person other than the subject of the article was brought in I knew little about and so on. I have noticed it is guys keeping the discussion going about what can be done, what should be done to make gaming venues safer for women and any marginalized group, and that is heartening. Women have always known we can't get much changed until guys see the problem for what it is.

The willingness of so many to look closer at events around them, to step into someone else's shoes is necessary and the first steps in real progress. And Caliburn, while the sentiment behind your post is appreciated, I am going to ask you to step into our shoes just once again, briefly. And here I will not be able to avoid connecting wider world events to the microcosm of gaming venues, because people move in BOTH worlds.

Last week there was another mass shooting in a school, and the third one this year where one of the victims is said to have rejected the advances or broken off a relationship with the shooter. When you suggest publicly humiliating bad actors on the spot, this is what the parents of the shooter are accusing this young woman of having done. He pestered her for several months before she confronted him openly in a class because simple no's had failed. He stewed on it a while, and then acted. 10 are dead, including the girl. This morning I read a statement from the shooter's father saying he felt like his SON was the VICTIM.

So I ask you this, how long before one of these incidents occur at a gaming con or venue? THIS is something that you MUST consider. Do cons have policies that prevent some young man, angry over rejection or humiliated from coming back and exacting revenge on ALL Con goers? shame we live in an age this even needs to be considered. But frankly, women have been having to consider exactly that level of violence for saying no forever.


----------



## Sadras

If anything the women do not come across Drow enough (light shade of black and their human-like features/forms).

As for the sexploitation style art it was very much the same of Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell's art of that era and many many others.
Hence the ridiculous clothing, hairstyle etc for such dangerously powerful warrior-wizard women.


----------



## Bagpuss

lowkey13 said:


> Look again. If you look at prior drow art (well, most of it ... there were a few problematic early ones) you saw them depicted with the jet-black/obsidian otherworldly elfin look - think of the famous Erol Otus illustration with the tentacle rod.
> 
> Here, we have a distinct illustration of the Drow borrowing themes and ... um .... coloration from Africa. Being able to see issues is often a first step, and, TBH, I am somewhat gobsmacked that this isn't apparent to some of the other people on this thread.




To be fair... they don't have African facial features, certain African tribes do have near jet-black skin, and colour palettes on earlier printers were limited, in fact most of the early illustrations are in black and white. Vault of the Drow the skin is virtually blue, so there wasn't much consistency.

Drow tend to be more grey nowadays if you do an image search for them.

You think if Drow were intended to be racists there be more than one illustration of them with African skin tones.  I imagine the artist was told drow look like elves but with black skin, but wasn't told by black they meant ebony, and by the time they got the illustration it was too late to commission new artwork.


----------



## Bagpuss

Jeanneliza said:


> But frankly, women have been having to consider exactly that level of violence for saying no forever.




It is a terrible catch 22, where if you say nothing the behaviour continues and the person might not even realise it is unwelcome. If you say something you risk a violent response.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

Bagpuss said:


> It is a terrible catch 22, where if you say nothing the behaviour continues and the person might not even realise it is unwelcome. If you say something you risk a violent response.




Which is why mediation is necessary. A person can go quietly to such a person without creating a public scene that risks escalation. The Con can speak to the alleged harasser quietly, and indeed point out to this person is risking public humiliation of it continues, if that is something they fear. 

The best options are going to include clear policy statements with a reporting system that focus' on safety AND de-escalation.


----------



## Bagpuss

lowkey13 said:


> It's not that hard; it's actually (in terms of understanding issues with Drow) a fairly famous example because it's pretty easy to see.




So the issue with Drow what then? That one artist, once got the skin tone wrong so they looked a little bit African. Seriously what is the issue with Drow? There is an issue with that illustration, most likely from a poor artist brief, but what is the issue with Drow as a whole? 

Or at least your issue with them?


----------



## Kobold Boots

I guess I'll chime in on this topic too, why not?

I'm not a woman, so take this as a request to seek counsel from one of the women who may be reading the thread.

So being a man and liking to "dress up" I do it for the following reasons.
1. I am fortunate enough to have an athletic build.
2. I am fortunate enough to have the cash to support decent clothing.
3. When I dress well, I get treated differently than when I dress like a slob.
4. When the person treating me differently is a woman, I'm aware the interaction is different and I know why, but I never feel like the woman is being a jerk.

Invert this to a woman dressing up and it seems like there's a real double standard that I don't really understand from a woman's perspective.
1. Women's clothing tends to show a lot more skin.
2. A lot of guys seem to be missing some social graces.  

I am not complaining about being able to see a beautiful woman.  I just know that I was taught that there were rules and I always took the core of them to be, "if you want to be able to see nice things and be with a nice girl, you need to treat them like they're doing you a favor by being with you and not treat them poorly."

Now I'm in my mid 40s and that either puts me on the old side or rapidly approaching it as it pertains to the younger crowd.  I'm also aware that harassment has always been a problem, but I've never asked a woman her point of view on it, because as far as I'm aware, I've not done it. (though this thread is making me think about it and wonder if I've been daft.)

Thanks,
KB


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bagpuss said:


> So the issue with Drow what then? That one artist, once got the skin tone wrong so they looked a little bit African. Seriously what is the issue with Drow? There is an issue with that illustration, most likely from a poor artist brief, but what is the issue with Drow as a whole?
> 
> Or at least your issue with them?




The issue I reckon, is that during that time period there would have been no non evil dark skinned human(oid) characters in the art work.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jeanneliza

KB fair enough. I'll cover some of that as best I am able.

First there is societal conditioning. This affects both genders, don't get me wrong, but your questions addressed the female perspective. From the time we are infants when our parents wanted to dress us up they invariably put us in dresses. It is a societal expectation, though less so now, that dressing up for a female involves, well, dresses. (I am one that think they suck.)
Evidence, how many times during the last presidential election was one candidates clothes described or addressed as opposed to the other?
Dress for success, this applies to both genders, but for women that usually implies feminine yet businesslike. Again watch news reports regarding successful women and note how often their clothes are the subject as opposed to their abilities.
Women's clothing tend to show a lot more skin.
In our society this has been a trend only for about 100 years. Prior to that a woman showing to much skin was immediately classified as immoral. The vestiges of those attitudes still inform some underlying assumptions today, not excluding the belief that how a woman dresses has something to do with her being assaulted.
Further we simultaneously demonize societies or beliefs that require women to cover.
Self-esteem. Same reason men like to dress nice, when you believe you look good it translates to feeling good. It doesn't imply that we only feel good about ourselves when we look good to men. Women dress as much to impress each OTHER as to impress men.
I am over 60, I have watched styles evolve, bikini's and mini-skirts were part of my generations rebellion. Some styles you see are the same thing, rebellion, rebellion against the misconceptions and perceptions of the past that forced limits on our choices. (For the record there is a company for women's clothing line that advertise under Wardrobe Rebellion).
Now I have worked in male dominated industries most of my working life. When I worked with cops I wore the exact same uniform they did. That did NOT prevent harassment.
When I worked with construction workers because of my training in civil engineering I wore jeans, work shirts and no make up. That did NOT prevent harassment.
When I was in theater studio, for class and rehearsal we dressed for movement and comfort, often leggings, plain t-shirts, sweats, we had one girl that came to rehearsal's in her flannel pajamas. On stage, well costumes were determined by the director  and costumer designer, suitable to and defining the character. 
But now I am old, I still dress for comfort. I have a lifestyle that allows me that choice.


----------



## Kobold Boots

[MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION] - 

I hadn't thought of the immorality angle coming off of Victorian-era (and prior) ethics or the social effects of Islamic tradition.  Likewise, since my ego insulates me against caring about looking awesome in the workplace or for other men generally, I hadn't thought about women impressing each other with their wardrobe.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.
KB


----------



## LordEntrails

My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are *not *black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.

Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.

Now, does this parallel racist views? Absolutely. Their is no doubt that western Europeans felt that their lighter color skin tone was proof they were good, and therefore those most different from them, with dark skin, must be bad or less.

But, it is also a very traditional (which does not mean valid or accepted in current society) and understood meme or tool to indicate what was desired; that this group of elves are bad. This is a stereotype. One of hundred or thousands that make up much of this game with play. Stereotypes are useful in order to communicate information ins very concise manner. Stereotypes are not actually accurate in the real world, and often not even in our fantasy ones. But, they are useful.

Stop worrying, and arguing about, if drow being black is due to early racism in the game. It really doesn't matter. _What matters is how are we going to protect people from harassment in our community?_ How do we (as a society) educate our members on simple things like "no", and how to deal with rejection in a healthy manner so that people don't feel bullied or victimized because they are told no.


----------



## Enkhidu

LordEntrails said:


> My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are *not *black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.
> 
> Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.




Quibble: Draw have black skin because they began as a (in my opinion - bad) take on svartalfar (literally, "black elves). Blame Roger Moore for the divine curse angle, which only came about after their initial appearance(s) in G1-3. 

Seriously - the dark skin of drow is based on an idea about a thousand years old. Any other misbehavior (and its there) is due to stupid, horny young men.


----------



## evileeyore

Riley37 said:


> Zelazny and the Amber novels are on the list.



You're really going to point to Amber and it's rampant sexism as 'progressive'?  Huh, never would have suspected that.





Bagpuss said:


> Well yes if you only look at the colour of their skin.



Too be fair, that is what racists do.



> Most people try to judge on more than just skin colour.



I'm not sure 'most people' aren't racist.  Certianly by some standards... everything is racist.





ardoughter said:


> That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"



Yes exactly!  That was always my biggest problem, a strong heirarchy in a "Choatic" society?  Err, what mate?





ardoughter said:


> Well the stripperific clothes never bothered me , being the target audience and all, but boob armour, or obvious gaps in armour and high heels on wilderness or warrior types can really set me off on a rant.



I never liked the stripperific armor*... and bare midriffs on a Fighter?  NO!

* Okay, for a brief period of time between say 12 and 14 I found it tantalizing.  After that it was just nonsensical to me.





Bagpuss said:


> Is it that  David C. Sutherland III name isn't mentioned even though he co-wrote Queen of the Demonweb pits?



Thank you!  Sutherland never gets enough credit.


----------



## Riley37

evileeyore said:


> You're really going to point to Amber and it's rampant sexism as 'progressive'?  Huh, never would have suspected that.




No, I'm not. Didn't then, and don't plan to. I pointed out one specific aspect, as an ethical principle which Zelazny established, and which Gygax, so far as I can tell, ignored, disregarded, and didn't bring into D&D: whether a Lord of Amber could recognize the worth of other humans *even partially*. Corwin didn't become an egalitarian, he just became *slightly less* of an elitist than his siblings. That said, this change saved at least one life, early in the first book, when he stopped Random from killing a guy for failing to show adequate deference, plus many lives in the mixed-race army when Corwin negotiated a surrender. Corwin was unusual, among his kind, in developing a sense of compassion. Doesn't mean he instantly, or even significantly, applied that compassion to fundamentally questioning and restructuring ALL his assumptions about ALL relationships.

If you jump to broader conclusions, such as my opinion on gender justice in Amber, and attack those broader conclusions as straw men, then you will give yourself easy victories. You might even earn EN World XP from those victories, but they won't help you become a better person.

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is more than one axis of oppression, and they interact but are not all the same thing? and some stories set a better example on one axis than on another axis? I find that idea useful. (shrug) Do what works for you!



evileeyore said:


> Too be fair, that is what racists do.




Nailed it. Tip of the hat.


----------



## Riley37

Jeanneliza said:


> "Special prize to any of you guys who manage to "score" with one of the chicks in the game." If you wanted something even more alarming than the first example.




Asked and answered! Also, all too plausible, as behavior at a con. Yeah, in that case, go with Game A, or better yet, find a third alternative.

Now I'm picturing some guy, who plays a paladin, and who always heals Daphne's character first, with Lay On Hands; with an attempt at innuendo about where exactly he Lays On Hands. He expects this preferential treatment of her *character*  to impress Daphne and earn her gratitude *as a player*. If it doesn't, or if it does, but not enough that she wants him as a scoring partner, and then he's extra angry because her rejection also means that his character doesn't get the special prize from the DM... 

Yeesh, outraged entitled men sometimes act very badly. If you see him trying to take Daphne to the hotel's bar, and then see him chasing after her when she storms off into the lobby, please keep an eye on them.

This Daphe is a fictional example. I want cons to do all they can, to provide a safer venue for all the Daphne-analogues who are real-world participants at cons.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, couple of things in random order:

1.  Drow as problematic.  Ok, there's the obvious color thing.  Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT.  The reason they made them black is because of racism.  So, basing your game race on those legends also ports in the racist attitudes that those legends were based on.  But, besides that point, there's the issue that the main, and, AFAIK, only specific matriarchy in the game is a man hating, man enslaving group of women who worship a black widow spider.  Umm, really?  It's not like there are a bunch of different matriarchal races in the game and certainly none with as much traction as drow.  The one that is front and center is about as blatantly sexist as you could possibly make it.  That's what makes it problematic.

2.  That all being said, it's not really productive to start pointing fingers and blame storming.  It just doesn't help.  It doesn't change anything.  I think we can agree that D&D, up until pretty recently, could have done considerably more to be inclusive.  Can we at least agree on that?

3.  We should also not forget that things are not as bad as we might make them sound.  WotC just recently bandied the number 15 million gamers in North America which is huge growth.  But, bigger than that, is the number of female gamers - 40%!!!

Think about what that means.  The last numbers I saw, back at the tail end of 3e, or early 4e, pegged the number of gamers at about 7.5 million.  Now, it depends on how you define gamers - that number was anyone who had played at least once.  Now, the 15 million number isn't defined, so, we'll say it's someone who has played once, just for the sake of argument.  The thing is, of that 7.5 million number, the number of female gamers was about 15%.  So, of the second half of that fifteen million, there had to be a HELL of a lot of female gamers giving the game a try.  

So, yeah, the game has become a LOT more inclusive over the past ten years or so, and, likely, mostly with 5e.  Fantastic.  Doesn't mean job done and we can sit back, but, it does help to recognize that we are progressing.  Things ARE getting better and a lot better, from the looks of it.

Getting all caught up in how the game was doesn't really help the conversation.  We have to talk about how the game and the community that plays the game, looks like NOW.  We can't change the past.  We have to look forward.

Can we please let the past stay in the background and focus on now?


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> Hmmmm.... I suggest taking another look at the cover. That's not, in fact, the most serious issue with it.




I'm not seeing it.  Drow women have white hair and dark skin, so that's normal for them and has nothing to do with the real world.  Other than drawing them scantily clad as was common for all women of all races in fantasy RPGs of the time, I don't see an issue there that has anything to do with the real world.  The two ogres don't seem to have anything wrong with them.  The illithid seems normal for its type.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaculata said:


> I don't feel that having a cover with sexy women is inherently sexist. Nor do I feel this cover in particular is sexist. Tacky, maybe... but not sexist. It seems in line with what you'd see on the cover of Heavy Metal back in the day. There's nothing wrong with that.




No it's not, when appropriate.  Heavy Metal was a racy magazine.  D&D is not.  Now, if it was a sultan with his harem, it wouldn't be sexist to draw the harem scantily clad.  When drawing warrior women, though, chain mail bikini's are being drawn just because, the way they SHOULD be drawn is with full cover armor like the male warriors are drawn.


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> Oh jeez, I'm having trouble understanding that people can't see this.
> 
> It has nothing to do with sexism. I could have found about 5 million early D&D pictures (let alone fantasy illustrations) that vary from causal sexism to "OMG I can't believe they used to use those."
> 
> Look again. If you look at prior drow art (well, most of it ... there were a few problematic early ones) you saw them depicted with the jet-black/obsidian otherworldly elfin look - think of the famous Erol Otus illustration with the tentacle rod.
> 
> Here, we have a distinct illustration of the Drow borrowing themes and ... um .... coloration from Africa. Being able to see issues is often a first step, and, TBH, I am somewhat gobsmacked that this isn't apparent to some of the other people on this thread.




That's not an issue, though.  Look at pretty much every instance where different artists give renditions over the years.  Batman is drawn many different ways, as is Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Black Panther and more.  Just because this artist didn't draw them jet black doesn't make it racist.  It was just a different interpretation of dark skinned elves.


----------



## evileeyore

Riley37 said:


> No, I'm not. Didn't then, and don't plan to.



Actually you did.  You chose to answer "Please tell me what inclusive, progressive authors were writing about fantasy at the time?" and chose Zelazny's Amber as one of your examples.  A sexist work if ever there was one.

Granted I chose not call you on Norton or Anderson (another pair of sexist writers) as I figure one distinct call out was enough, but maybe I should have?  (Also, admission, I'm not as familiar with Norton and Anderson, not being as fond of their works, so had to do some research to confirm my suspicion.  Which I was too lazy to do earlier.)


That you opted to draw out the singular redeeming quality bestowed upon the (unreliable) hero of the (first five) Amber stories doesn't ignore the rest of the work.  Anymore than Hussar choosing to focus only on the negative aspects of the authors and works on Gygax's list doesn't ignore the positives within those works or authors.

If it's good for you, why not the other side?  Why can't we draw out only the positive aspects of the Gygaxian list, which he clearly drew upon when crafting D&D, since D&D is _inherently not sexist or racist in it's rules_ (I'm choosing to ignore the negative art at the moment, just as you ignored Zelzazny his sexism...).



> I pointed out one specific aspect, as an ethical principle which Zelazny established, and which Gygax, so far as I can tell, ignored, disregarded, and didn't bring into D&D: whether a Lord of Amber could recognize the worth of other humans *even partially*.



Stunning.  That the idea that players of D&D can be any race and are not required to ignore the personhood of all the other races somehow went right past you didn't it?


Yes, yes, I know early and modern D&D is still 'color-coded' for one's stealing from/killing convenience.  Can we leave the "Is an orc a person or just a thing to be killed and whom's pie to be liberated" debate in that thread?  I've railed against the non-personhood of the 'evil' races long enough over the last 30 some odd years.



> That said, this change saved at least one life, early in the first book, when he stopped Random from killing a guy for failing to show adequate deference, plus many lives in the mixed-race army when Corwin negotiated a surrender.



You're going to have to convince me that Shadow folk are anything beyond the extension of a Real Person'sTM desire before I agree he actually became anything other than 'slightly eccentric' and was actually _saving lives_.



> Corwin was unusual, among his kind, in developing a sense of compassion.



Only in that he was the first.  And we only have his word for that after all...

From the Watsonian perspective, Corwin is a _very_ unreliable narrator, from the Doylist perspective Zelazny was a lazy author who failed to do his homework.



> If you jump to broader conclusions...



I returned to the broader reach of the original question.



> ...such as my opinion on gender justice in Amber...



I actually didn't question your opinion on that at all, only that you considered Amber to be at all 'progressive' since, you know, it isn't at all.  A feeling of compassion for lesser beings was established literarally and in society a very, very long time before Zelazny wrote _Nine Princes in Amber_, so Coriwn finding it within himself wasn't at all progress.  It was/is the status quo.



> ...and attack those broader conclusions as straw men...



You didn't have 'broader conclusions', remember, you were _narrowing_ your focus.  Do try to stay on page yes. 

But yes I attacked the broader conclusion that Gygax (and D&D by extension) are inherently problematic because no one here is actually pointing out how _in the rules_ it is (yes, sexist art exists.  That is a given and has changed, kinda, ?maybe? for the better and I'm not getting drawn into ye olde "Are Orcs People" debate, it's a fruitless never ending circle of determinism versus environmentalism).



> ..then you will give yourself easy victories.



Was it an easy victory?  Have i already won?  Don't give up, there's hope for you yet.



> You might even earn EN World XP from those victories...



And no one will ever know.  I turned that bothersome nonsense off a long time ago (immediately as soon as it was implemented actually).



> but they won't help you become a better person.



That's what they call around these parts a "personal attack" (by inference you imply I'm a 'worse' person that needs to 'improve').  Be careful with those, thinner skinned folks will call the modstopo out on you for it.



> Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is more than one axis of oppression...



Yes, as an underprivileged member of the proletariat I feel the grinding weight of the bourgeoisie upon my neck everyday.



> Nailed it. Tip of the hat.



Really?  So you have an argument against the notion that racists are only concerned with skin color?






Riley37 said:


> Asked and answered! Also, all too plausible, as behavior at a con.



"Plausible"?  Really?  I've never heard anything even close to that uttered at a con or other gaming event*.

Maybe I surround myself with, or simply have had the luck to be amongst, a better class of people.  You know, like the common average con goers.


* Admittedly I have heard similar phrases uttered in biker bars and by highly educated professionals.  Both groups should have known better, but it was the early 90's, so hopefully they've learned better ways now that it's [CURRENT YEAR].



> Yeesh, outraged entitled men sometimes act very badly.



So do outraged, entitled women.  Hold that, I'll go with "so do outraged entitled people".






Hussar said:


> Ok, couple of things in random order:
> 
> 1.  Drow as problematic.  Ok, there's the obvious color thing.  Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT.  The reason they made them black is because of racism.



So... the white guys who'd yet to really encounter black people made the 'evil'* elves black because racism?

Really?


* Note, the actual original 'dark elves', the dökkálfar, weren't evil.  They just lived underground and were dark skinned, not at all 'evil' (and might actually have been dwarves).  So...  where's the racism again?

Or do you mean the svartálfar, who almost certainly were 'dwarves'?  And also weren't evil?



> But, besides that point, there's the issue that the main, and, AFAIK, only specific matriarchy in the game is a *man hating, man enslaving* group of women who worship a black widow spider.



I'm not sure why that's an issue.  They are _obviously_ not human (and not meant to represent a human group) and are a _sexually dimorphic species_ (female are smarter and stronger among the Drow*).

They could only get further from being human if they were Illithid.


(Now, I will accept the argument that they were meant as a 'bad pastiche of patriarchal fears' if you can actually convince there is such a thing as 'the patriarchy'.  But then, why is exploring a bad pastiche of some (albeit non-existent) group's fears bad?  isn't exploring ideas what fantasy is all about?)



> ...only specific matriarchy in the game...



http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Rashemen

I know you hit us with the 'AFAIK', and Faerun is a bit off-shooty these days, and the Witches of Rashemen were very under utilized... but...  you know... still existed.



> Getting all caught up in how the game was doesn't really help the conversation.  We have to talk about how the game and the community that plays the game, looks like NOW.  We can't change the past.  We have to look forward.
> 
> Can we please let the past stay in the background and focus on now?



I'm mildly shocked in that I agree (a bit) with this.

But can I still argue with people over how it really wasn't that horrible back then?  Please?





Maxperson said:


> When drawing warrior women, though, chain mail bikini's are being drawn just because, the way they SHOULD be drawn is with full cover armor like the male warriors are drawn.



Don't even get me started on the 'boob plate' nonsense.  Just don't.  It's a long rant.

I'm just ecstatic that GoT got Brienne of Tarth's armor right.  So much happiness.


----------



## LordEntrails

evileeyore said:


> But can I still argue with people over how it really wasn't that horrible back then?  Please?



Sure, but your just wasting a lot of people's time, and encouraging more people to stop paying attention to this thread.


----------



## Maxperson

LordEntrails said:


> My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are *not *black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.
> 
> Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.
> 
> Now, does this parallel racist views? Absolutely. Their is no doubt that western Europeans felt that their lighter color skin tone was proof they were good, and therefore those most different from them, with dark skin, must be bad or less.
> 
> But, it is also a very traditional (which does not mean valid or accepted in current society) and understood meme or tool to indicate what was desired; that this group of elves are bad. This is a stereotype. One of hundred or thousands that make up much of this game with play. Stereotypes are useful in order to communicate information ins very concise manner. Stereotypes are not actually accurate in the real world, and often not even in our fantasy ones. But, they are useful.
> 
> Stop worrying, and arguing about, if drow being black is due to early racism in the game. It really doesn't matter. _What matters is how are we going to protect people from harassment in our community?_ How do we (as a society) educate our members on simple things like "no", and how to deal with rejection in a healthy manner so that people don't feel bullied or victimized because they are told no.




White as good and black as evil has other associations as well.  Day(white) was safer, people could see dangers, plants grew, it was life.  Night(evil) held hidden dangers, predators stalked people, it was filled with evil spirits, people were injured by unseen dangers, etc.  Some people associate these things with race, but race doesn't have to have anything to do with white=good and black=evil.  It's nothing more than an assumption to think that Gygax was being racist by the creation of drow as evil and good elves being pale.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Ok, couple of things in random order:
> 
> 1.  Drow as problematic.  Ok, there's the obvious color thing.  Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT.  The reason they made them black is because of racism.




The reason for it was that the blackness of night held dangers and unknowns.  It caused fear and was relegated to being the color of evil.  Later on, because black was thought to be the color of evil, people with black skin were often treated poorly, but they were not the cause of the black = evil belief.  It's very probable that Gygax was going with the night/day association, not racism.


----------



## Particle_Man

There is such a thing as unconscious racism (and unconscious sexism), and privilege that can lead one to be blind to unconscious racism (and unconscious sexism).  I am not claiming that Gyax was dressing up in a white hood or burning a cross on his lawn, or even that he was consciously thinking that African-Americans, or women, were more prone than white men  to being bad people, but it seems that at the very least he did not consider that many people, including many African-Americans, would find it problematic that such a major "bad guy" race was darker skinned, and that many people, including many women, would find it problematic that such a major "bad guy" race was matriarchal.  This might have kept those people from enjoying playing AD&D as much as they otherwise would have, and may have kept some from the game entirely.

Imagine if Gygax had exactly reversed that with the Drow and elves, with the "good guy" elves being the dark-skinned matriarchal ones and the "bad guy" elves being patriarchal and lighter skinned.  Perhaps that would have given some women, and some African-Americans (among others who have dark skin and who have experienced prejudice because of it), a race to consider playing, one that was coded as "good guy" and "in some ways like you".  

Drow are still in the game even in the more enlightened 5th edition of D&D.  That, in my opinion, is still a problem. That said, I am impressed that 5th edition has made efforts to be more inclusive, both in the tone and structure of its games and in attempts to reduce sexual and other harassment at cons (and on messageboards). 

And AD&D 1st ed. did have a variation in upper strength limits for male and female characters (and one that was relevant to class level limits as fighters, according to player's handbook and unearthed arcana race/class level limit tables).  That does seem to be a sexist element built into the rules of the game, and indeed one that was later taken out from future editions of AD&D and D&D.

I think that one way to reduce harassment is to be a little more aware of how this game will look to first time players, many of whom will not, upon seeing an adventure where Drow are the villains, think "oh, that is some sort of spider-worshipping alien thing that is the bad guy" but will think "oh that is a group of dark-skinned women, coded as Very Evil, and we the Heroes need to slay them to save the world/country/village/prisoners/etc., including those light-skinned guys called "elves" over there that look a lot like the dark-skinned ones except for the aformentioned skin colour."  

It not only would be off-putting for some, but, like the sexist or racist joke, might be seen by others as tacit permission to be sexist, racist and (to bring it back on topic) a harasser at cons.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> The reason for it was that the blackness of night held dangers and unknowns.  It caused fear and was relegated to being the color of evil.  Later on, because black was thought to be the color of evil, people with black skin were often treated poorly, but they were not the cause of the black = evil belief.  It's very probable that Gygax was going with the night/day association, not racism.




And you can't imagine anyone possibly making any other connection here?  Your interpretation is the only one that anyone could possibly come to?  Not one person, looking at the Drow could possibly come to any other conclusion?  

See, just because YOU don't have a problem with it doesn't matter.  it really, really, really doesn't.  Heck, it doesn't even really matter that you are pretty much correct in the roots of the idea.  Although, arguing that drow are Svartalfar is a bit of a stretch since virtually everything that we associate with drow - matriarchy, evil, spiders - is entirely a D&D conceit.  

But, even if we ignore the light=good, dark=evil aspect, they're still incredibly misogynistic.  Again, men hating women who worship a black widow spider goddess?  I mean, come on, that's pretty blatant.  Even if they pass your particular sniff test for racism, can you at least agree that they might be problematic for gender issues?


----------



## Riley37

evileeyore said:


> That's what they call around these parts a "personal attack" (by inference you imply I'm a 'worse' person that needs to 'improve').  Be careful with those, thinner skinned folks will call the modstopo out on you for it.




"modstopo"? I'm here voluntarily. When Morrus and/or Umbran set limits which I cannot abide, then I'll stop participating. I question your portmanteau, on the grounds that there's more than a slippery slope of difference between EN World moderation and the historical Gestapo. (EN World mods haven't killed any of my relatives; the Gestapo did.)

Your inference, yet again, jumps to a conclusion, and doesn't land on truth. You have room for improvement; so do I; so does everyone. I will happily explain that aspect of my worldview to mods, any time it conflicts with the worldview of other EN World participants. Iunno if you "need" to improve. Perhaps you feel no such need?



evileeyore said:


> Maybe I surround myself with, or simply have had the luck to be amongst, a better class of people.  You know, like the common average con goers.




You hang out with a better class of people, the average people... so tough luck, too bad so sad, for any newcomer who happens to run into a con participant from a less-well-behaved decile of the bell curve?



evileeyore said:


> Admittedly I have heard similar phrases uttered in biker bars and by highly educated professionals. Both groups should have known better, but it was the early 90's, so hopefully they've learned better ways now that it's [CURRENT YEAR].




If your position on the issue of harassment at cons boils down to "Oh, that was back in the early 90s!", then I encourage you to review Fannon's descriptions of his own actions in 2014 through 2018. You might also review the activities of Harvey Weinstein, Brock Turner, and Daniel Holzclaw. I would rather not gamble whether Daphne's con experience includes harassment, on your hope that everyone has learned better ways.

I have a theory about people who choose "evil" in their usernames. Yeah, it's just a joke! It's so edgy and ironic! It's such a courageous pushback against boring, goody-two-shoes aspirations towards compassion and justice! I encourage newcomers at cons to stay far away from such people.


----------



## evileeyore

Particle_Man said:


> ... "in some ways like you".



I'm not saying this doesn't exist... but in all my years of gaming I've played far more characters that were unlike me than like me.  Why would anyone want to roleplay as themselves?


I can get the whole "I want to play a [ethnic skin color] character", I've seen it happen often enough  Black and Latino dwarves, elves, etc...  I've never once heard a GM say "No, sorry those [FANTASY RACE] are only white skinned!"  Is there really a problem, or is this a problem people were told existed by their college professors/favorite internet [-]journos[/-] bloggers?






Hussar said:


> And you can't imagine anyone possibly making any other connection here?



Oh no, it's pretty obvious you see it as a problem.  It requires zero imagination.  I think you are wrong though.



> Although, arguing that drow are Svartalfar is a bit of a stretch since virtually everything that we associate with drow - matriarchy, evil, spiders - is entirely a D&D conceit.



That actually came from me in response to you claiming that the mythic origins of the race were rooted in racism on the part of the Nords.  And you were also wrong there.



> But, even if we ignore the light=good, dark=evil aspect, they're still incredibly misogynistic.



In what way?  Are women not allowed to be extremely competent badguys?  That's a bit stiflingly sexist.






Riley37 said:


> "modstopo"?



It's a fun word.



> Iunno if you "need" to improve.



But yet you make that claim?  Maybe stick to what you do know?



> You hang out with a better class of people, the average people...



The point being that I didn't surround myself with only the best of the nicest, and yet I'd have been shocked to ever hear someone at a con say something that crass.

But you consider it 'all to plausible'.  So either you've been aroundsome really nasty con people or you have a serious hate on for the male sex.



> ...so tough luck, too bad so sad, for any newcomer who happens to run into a con participant from a less-well-behaved decile of the bell curve?



No, they should do what everyone has been/should have been doing for ages, go to con staff, report the aberrant behavior.

I've volunteered for security at conventions many times.  I know what stupid things men and women get up to when they are drunk and with a largely 'anonymous' crowd.

Fannon was about the worst of _that_ sort of nonsense.



> If your position on the issue of harassment at cons boils down to "Oh, that was back in the early 90s!"...



No, that was my position on harassment at _biker bars_ and chem labs back in early 90's.

I never witnessed or heard about anything that 'vile' when I've been at conventions.



> ...then I encourage you to review Fannon's descriptions of his own actions in 2014 through 2018.



Yup, sounds like he stepped across the line.  Not at all likely for such behavior to go unchecked these days, and I'm actually surprised it went unchecked back then.  But then that seems to be the thing, celebrities get away with stuff regular folks wouldn't (up to a point, and as a society we've crossed that point it seems).

But I never had problems with celebrities acting like asses, so I guess my groups got lucky.



> You might also review the activities of Harvey Weinstein, Brock Turner, and Daniel Holzclaw.  I would rather not gamble whether Daphne's con experience includes harassment, on your hope that everyone has learned better ways.



If you consider them to be the average con experience, you and 'Daphne' should stay at home and never go to cons.

It's just safer for you and everyone else.



> I have a theory about people who choose "evil" in their usernames.



I'll bet it's as well thought out as the rest of your arguments! /zing



> Yeah, it's just a joke! It's so edgy and ironic! It's such a courageous pushback against boring, goody-two-shoes aspirations towards compassion and justice!



I've had this user ID for just over twenty-one years.  Yes, there was a time when I was unable to come up with anything unique (and without numbers tacked on it like some unimaginative scrub) for an email address, so my girlfriend suggested "Why not just combine your two old nick names?"

And this username was born.

(fun trivia, the first handle I ever made was on a BBS back in '86, it was a JRRTolkien themed gaming BBS, I went by gollum.  I was 12, so just cut me some slack on that one.)



> I encourage newcomers at cons to stay far away from such people.



That's a good idea.  Old men like me are liable to tell terrible jokes about shaking their canes at the juveniles on their lawn, and not realize how ageist that might be.


----------



## Hussar

Wait, what?  Andre Norton as sexist?  You do realize that most of her later works featured strong female protagonists and she's generally considered a pretty strong feminist writer, right?  Sure, some of her early works might be a bit problematic, but, I suggest you read the Witch World series if you think Andre Norton is sexist.


----------



## Caliburn101

Eltab said:


> I don't have a good "feel" for what will convince you to charge into a given interaction between two other people, but do be aware that if you make YOURSELF a pest, the Con may have something unpleasant to say to you about it.




No you don't have a good feel, and of course knowing myself immeasurably better than you do, I can confidently state that in fact you don't have any feel whatsoever. 

So not having one, you really shouldn't have made any further statements related to your presumption - especially with such unsubtle use of language - the word 'charge' to imply a lack of control and putting the word 'yourself' in caps to emphasise how little you trust that if I read it in lower case I probably still _wouldn't_ understand...

Fortunately I am not offended by your baseless assumptions or crude needling, so naturally I don't feel in any way motivated to say anything unpleasant about it in response.

As this is a serious issue however, and your statement ably illustrates an important ongoing reason for the failure of the hobby to drive this behaviour out of it's cons and events, I will say _this_...

...It is _precisely_ this kind of decision paralysis because of a fear to act by those witnessing bad behaviour that prevents effective intervention, and by habit of doing so, peer-group enforced prevention.

If you report sexism after the fact then the people running the con or whatever have a legal situation on their hands - your word against their word and little more to go on. They cannot act easily or frequently effectively under these limited circumstances. Witnesses are less likely to come forward under such conditions of doubt, for fear of the issue being dropped and their being residual bad blood from the one(s) they accused etc. I have seen it at rpg and larp events on multiple occasions.

People just 'walk on by'.

On the other hand, if it is called as and when it happens, the moral courage shown by the one doing so acts as a catalyst to those others that also witnessed it to agree on that fact right there and then, and be more confident in reporting it alongside others. I have seen this too.

So you will forgive me if I once again state - if I see sexist or racist behaviour at Games Expo or anywhere else I will be calling it out.

Only if more people join me, and take personal responsibility (within the rule of law and convention codes of conduct) for policing their own space against such nauseating and in some cases illegal behaviour will we see events _finally_ free of it.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Caliburn101 said:


> No you don't have a good feel, and of course knowing myself immeasurably better than you do, I can confidently state that in fact you don't have any feel whatsoever.
> 
> So not having one, you really shouldn't have made any further statements related to your presumption - especially with such unsubtle use of language - the word 'charge' to imply a lack of control and putting the word 'yourself' in caps to emphasise how little you trust that if I read it in lower case I probably still _wouldn't_ understand...
> 
> Fortunately I am not offended by your baseless assumptions or crude needling, so naturally I don't feel in any way motivated to say anything unpleasant about it in response.
> 
> As this is a serious issue however, and your statement ably illustrates an important ongoing reason for the failure of the hobby to drive this behaviour out of it's cons and events, I will say _this_...
> 
> ...It is _precisely_ this kind of decision paralysis because of a fear to act by those witnessing bad behaviour that prevents effective intervention, and by habit of doing so, peer-group enforced prevention.
> 
> If you report sexism after the fact then the people running the con or whatever have a legal situation on their hands - your word against their word and little more to go on. They cannot act easily or frequently effectively under these limited circumstances. Witnesses are less likely to come forward under such conditions of doubt, for fear of the issue being dropped and their being residual bad blood from the one(s) they accused etc. I have seen it at rpg and larp events on multiple occasions.
> 
> People just 'walk on by'.
> 
> On the other hand, if it is called as and when it happens, the moral courage shown by the one doing so acts as a catalyst to those others that also witnessed it to agree on that fact right there and then, and be more confident in reporting it alongside others. I have seen this too.
> 
> So you will forgive me if I once again state - if I see sexist or racist behaviour at Games Expo or anywhere else I will be calling it out.
> 
> Only if more people join me, and take personal responsibility (within the rule of law and convention codes of conduct) for policing their own space against such nauseating and in some cases illegal behaviour will we see events _finally_ free of it.




Hi Caliburn - 

Your profile says you're over 40.  Your passion reads like you're 12. So I'll reply in kind.  Someone comes up to me when I'm being saucy with my wife at a con and accuses me of sexist behavior without asking my wife if she's cool, and I'm going to take that person down regardless of whether or not the police are called or I get kicked out of the con.  You see, where I come from, my reputation is more important than my police record and while I would have a bit of a black mark for knocking someone's rear clean out, it's better than being labeled a sex offender.

So please, if you're going to act this way, protect yourself by being careful about it.  Sidenote:  I am not going to any cons this summer and am not in the UK, so don't take this as any sort of a threat.  I just don't want to see anyone get hurt on either side of the equation.

Be well
KB


----------



## Caliburn101

Removed - more succinct response below.


----------



## Caliburn101

Just to be clear.

If you are more concerned about what might go wrong if sexism is challenged at events etc., even to the point of being paralysed into inaction, then at best you aren't helping, and at worst, you are passively enabling it.

If you openly admit that physically assaulting someone over a mistake is acceptable, then you are advocating criminality, and will probably get a limited ban from any forum or event you attend for advocating it, and a lifetime ban and criminal record for inciting it or carrying it out yourself.

I would suggest further debate on the unresolved issue of harassment policies stick to the central and constructive point that something more needs to be done.

If you find my contention that I would act either uncomfortable because you fear over-reaction and it's consequences, or worse, you feel the need to insult and threaten, then ask yourself how you are helping reduce sexism in our hobby by such responses?


----------



## Bagpuss

Caliburn101 said:


> So you will forgive me if I once again state - if I see sexist or racist behaviour at Games Expo or anywhere else I will be calling it out.
> 
> Only if more people join me, and take personal responsibility (within the rule of law and convention codes of conduct) for policing their own space against such nauseating and in some cases illegal behaviour will we see events _finally_ free of it.




I'm curious how many cons have you attended in the past, and how many times have you needed to take personal responsibility and step in?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> And you can't imagine anyone possibly making any other connection here?  Your interpretation is the only one that anyone could possibly come to?  Not one person, looking at the Drow could possibly come to any other conclusion?




Sure I can imagine another reason, but Gygax wasn't some raging racist.  So given the incredibly unlikely possibility that he decided to make elves with racism in mind, or the incredibly likely possibility that he didn't, I'm not going to assume racism.  



> See, just because YOU don't have a problem with it doesn't matter.  it really, really, really doesn't.  Heck, it doesn't even really matter that you are pretty much correct in the roots of the idea.  Although, arguing that drow are Svartalfar is a bit of a stretch since virtually everything that we associate with drow - matriarchy, evil, spiders - is entirely a D&D conceit.
> 
> But, even if we ignore the light=good, dark=evil aspect, they're still incredibly misogynistic.  Again, men hating women who worship a black widow spider goddess?  I mean, come on, that's pretty blatant.  Even if they pass your particular sniff test for racism, can you at least agree that they might be problematic for gender issues?



They don't hate men.  Just because you can draw parallels in the real world, doesn't make those parallels the intended reason for something.  Correlation does not equal causation.  Unless you can PROVE that misogyny is what caused Gygax to create drow, rather than just trying to imagine what an evil matriarchal society might be like, assuming the worst doesn't accomplish much other than to drag someone's name through the mud.  Can you prove that misogyny is the reason for his decision?


----------



## Caliburn101

Bagpuss said:


> I'm curious how many cons have you attended in the past, and how many times have you needed to take personal responsibility and step in?




Thankfully only on three occasions in 35+ years of attending such events, large and small.

In both cases I was not only able to judge what was sexism (and in one case racism) but able to articulate myself to the persons involved and organisers perfectly ably. This was true at two cons and at a larp event.

What disturbs me the most about the fact it isn't yet dealt with is that despite reasonable policies being in existence for quite a long time now, there is still a fear of acting.

How much more so must be the fear on the part of victims that their complaints will be equally dismissed, ignored and passive-aggressively challenged?... and how difficult must it be for women to know who is raising a genuine concern about mislabelling alleged perpetrators and who is cleverly throwing cold water on the issue for ulterior motives?


----------



## Jeanneliza

Caliburn101 said:


> Just to be clear.
> 
> If you are more concerned about what might go wrong if sexism is challenged at events etc., even to the point of being paralysed into inaction, then at best you aren't helping, and at worst, you are passively enabling it.
> 
> If you openly admit that physically assaulting someone over a mistake is acceptable, then you are advocating criminality, and will probably get a limited ban from any forum or event you attend for advocating it, and a lifetime ban and criminal record for inciting it or carrying it out yourself.
> 
> I would suggest further debate on the unresolved issue of harassment policies stick to the central and constructive point that something more needs to be done.
> 
> If you find my contention that I would act either uncomfortable because you fear over-reaction and it's consequences, or worse, you feel the need to insult and threaten, then ask yourself how you are helping reduce sexism in our hobby by such responses?




So my comments on the dangers of escalating the situation by arbitrarily publicly humiliating someone because you perceive their behavior as bad, without asking the victim what they would prefer is rather ignored. Do you not recognize that your method would humiliate the victim and perpetrator equally? That you have decided as MALE that you know best and will act on it without again, consulting the victim? Asking them how they want it handled? Instead of offering them assistance in reporting it in a manner that can de-escalate the situation?
That brings me to one of the phrases that puzzled me, less so now. Virtue signalling. When you insist on playing White Knight without thought to the feelings or preferences of the victim are you not doing just that? Look what a great guy I am? Don't worry about the victim, look at me doing the right thing?


----------



## Caliburn101

Jeanneliza said:


> So my comments on the dangers of escalating the situation by arbitrarily publicly humiliating someone because you perceive their behavior as bad, without asking the victim what they would prefer is rather ignored. Do you not recognize that your method would humiliate the victim and perpetrator equally? That you have decided as MALE that you know best and will act on it without again, consulting the victim? Asking them how they want it handled? Instead of offering them assistance in reporting it in a manner that can de-escalate the situation?
> That brings me to one of the phrases that puzzled me, less so now. Virtue signalling. When you insist on playing White Knight without thought to the feelings or preferences of the victim are you not doing just that? Look what a great guy I am? Don't worry about the victim, look at me doing the right thing?




No Jeanneliza, I just trust my judgement on the matter, for what I consider good reasons. You should not do me the disservice of assuming I am self-deluded in this respect - your presumption would be entirely baseless if you did.

If I witness sexism, regard it after due reflection as sexism (and there is no reason this should take long in clear cases) then what transpired is not merely a lightly dismissed matter of perception, it is a matter of fact, as far as fact can ever be established from a witness to an event. The same fact I would establish by repeating them in court if so asked. Asking the person most directly impacted is in some cases entirely warranted, but in some cases, especially in the case of someone clearly intimidated and in shock (a very common reaction), directly acting is not only the right thing to do, it is entirely legally defensible. Someone in shock, by definition does everything in their power to ignore what just happened, not because they rationally want to, but because that's simply how people react to traumatic and unexpected events. You might like to read up on the role of the hypothalamus in this regard.

It is consequently very common for victims to want to rectify the source of the trauma (seek redress etc.) only _after_ the shock has subsided. But all too usually, by this point, people have moved on, and finding witnesses or the perpetrator (who has naturally disappeared) is difficult. This means most sexist incidents etc. don't get resolved and those guilty feel free to continue on to the next incident unidentified and unchallenged. This can be especially true in 'closed shop' populations with shared interests such as gamers, or for that matter the Hollywood film industry.

Perhaps gaming should have it's own #metoo moment? It would open the eyes of convention (and like events) organisers on the effectiveness of their policies and how they police them.

Your concerns are of course most relevant, but if taken to read 'never intervene just in case', will mean inaction is significantly more likley. We are talking about harassment here - not a slip of the tongue with a smutty joke.

As for playing the 'The White Knight', ironically, you are now involved yourself in a label and shame accusation - as such a label is taken to mean I am a well-meaning fool more concerned with my own image as a do-gooder than someone with compassion and the will to act. Perhaps you think that I regard women as in need of defending - being 'powerless' themselves?

Whatever the extent of the negative assumptions in that part of your message, it is nevertheless entirely unfair...

I am however sympathetic to your motives as I perceive them, so I will clarify.

I am fortunate not only to have some very strong women in my family (both close and extended) who have been or are actively involved in women's rights, but I have been drawn up short on the odd occasion on my passive tolerance of what I though very mild forms of sexism without spite or forethought behind them. It was made clear to made that I had acted unwittingly as an enabler. I found that at first to be unfair criticism - but I was won round by reasoned argument - that tolerance, however silent and in the background just encourages such behaviour. Consequent to that I spent some considerable time thinking about it, challenging my own behaviour and studying the issue and looking at rpg gaming in particular as it is my first hobby.

So I am not indulging a knee-jerk reaction, I am not uninformed, and I am not I would say fairly labelled as a "MALE", with all the implied criticism and guilt of bias you seem to have loaded that with.

I hope that makes my considered position clear. I have considered the issue in depth, seen both the outcomes, challenged my own passive complicity and consequently chosen after that process to be one who acts.

I will always acknowledge differing opinions on the matter, but my choice is made.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Gygax has produced work that criticises racism - the Scarlet Brotherhood in World of Greyhawk (1983) are evil white supremacists. He's also produced work that's racist (and sexist) - the drow. I've produced work that,  on later examination, I realised was racist. In a superhero scenario with a cast of dozens of NPCs, I made the only black character a Tigra-esque catwoman. The racism of an artistic work does not depend upon intent, it depends upon the work itself.



Maxperson said:


> Sure I can imagine another reason, but Gygax wasn't some raging racist. So given the incredibly unlikely possibility that he decided to make elves with racism in mind, or the incredibly likely possibility that he didn't, I'm not going to assume racism.




This is a misunderstanding of what it means for a text to be racist.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Kobold Boots

Caliburn101 said:


> Just to be clear.
> 
> If you are more concerned about what might go wrong if sexism is challenged at events etc., even to the point of being paralysed into inaction, then at best you aren't helping, and at worst, you are passively enabling it.
> 
> If you openly admit that physically assaulting someone over a mistake is acceptable, then you are advocating criminality, and will probably get a limited ban from any forum or event you attend for advocating it, and a lifetime ban and criminal record for inciting it or carrying it out yourself.
> 
> I would suggest further debate on the unresolved issue of harassment policies stick to the central and constructive point that something more needs to be done.
> 
> If you find my contention that I would act either uncomfortable because you fear over-reaction and it's consequences, or worse, you feel the need to insult and threaten, then ask yourself how you are helping reduce sexism in our hobby by such responses?




Hi Caliburn - 

I'm just telling you that you need to be careful about how you approach people about sensitive topics when the outcomes are very serious.  Your desired outcome would not always be beneficial to you.

My telling you that given the laws in the US, where even verbally harassing someone if taken too far can legally brand you a sex offender with all of its down level negative effects is much worse than taking a 2nd degree battery charge.  Neither is ideal and neither is condoned, but if someone even remotely suggests that I'm that kind of person, I would have no problem taking them outside.  That response is about as American as you can get coming out of my generation and upbringing.

At the point where someone crosses a line of acceptable behavior, then expecting acceptable behavior in return is stupid.  It's just not acceptable to call someone out unless you have them dead to rights on something, and walking around in a con environment, full of distractions and hubbub is not going to be a place where you're going to have enough information to go shouting about sexism except in the most blatant cases.

It's equally criminal to accuse someone of something they didn't do. (slander)  So your position isn't exactly on the high horse you're speaking from in the above reply.

Just tone it down a bit (as you've already done - kudos) and you'll be fine.

Be well
KB

(edit: Your heart's in the right place but your passion is disturbing - no one here wants people to be subjected to sexist behavior)


----------



## Eltab

Hussar said:


> 1.  Drow as problematic.



There is also the connotation that 'being stuck underground' = 'a horrible fate'.  

Which has been a part of Western Civilization since its beginning; some roots tracing back to King David in Psalms asking God "Do not send my soul down to Sheol, into the pit."


----------



## Lylandra

long story short: Even the most well-meaning of people are often not aware of their own biases. 

I also don't think anyone applied *active* racism or misogyny when creating the D&D drow. They just created them based on their own assumptions, spiced up with imagery they liked. 

And also, there is nothing wrong with badass evil women. But maybe ask a woman first before you publish them. And maybe include more types of women than the damsel, the witch, the evil seductress, the pious priestess, the sexy elf chick and Joan of Arc.


----------



## Eltab

Kobold Boots said:


> It's just not acceptable to call someone out unless you have them dead to rights on something, and walking around in a con environment, full of distractions and hubbub is not going to be a place where you're going to have enough information to go shouting about sexism except in the most blatant cases.



+1

Hence my recommendation many pages ago to keep a cell-cam (and some friends when possible) handy.  Whether you were the target or a Good Samaritan, you have something to show Security and explain "This is what was happening, and why I did what I did."
So they can exercise the Con's authority, wisely with good knowledge.


----------



## LordEntrails

lowkey13 said:


> ...
> 
> If you don't know where you came from, how do you know where you're going?
> ...
> 
> And that's the problem when you attempt to take Hussar's reasonable suggestion and just move on; if people wish to disregard the structural issues of the past that were glaringly obvious, how can we address the structural issues of the present or future, which may be a little more subtle?
> ...
> 
> I love D&D, and I am comfortable with many of the stereotypes that are employed ... in a game. I haven't excised drow because of racism and sexism (I just did it because they suck). But if we can't even acknowledge, in a healthy, non-finger pointing way, the systemic issues of the past, how can we possibly move forward?




When I have advocated in this thread for moving on it is not because I think the past is irrelevant (I've added thoughts on historical relevance). I advocate moving on because "we've beat that dead horse enough".

Yes,history and context are important, critical even. But continuing to spend time on the past and every possible nuance doesn't help with the current or future enough to warrant continued discussion. 

Diminishing returns. Opportunity Value. More important things to discuss.



Caliburn101 said:


> ...
> What disturbs me the most about the fact it isn't yet dealt with is that despite reasonable policies being in existence for quite a long time now, there is still a fear of acting.
> 
> How much more so must be the fear on the part of victims that their complaints will be equally dismissed, ignored and passive-aggressively challenged?... and how difficult must it be for women to know who is raising a genuine concern about mislabelling alleged perpetrators and who is cleverly throwing cold water on the issue for ulterior motives?




I have to agree with this. We, the observers, MUST act when we see something wrong. Even if it is at risk to ourselves. To do otherwise is to allow such behavior to continue. And, who is in more danger if the behavior is called out? The victim, or an observer?

Had one of the recent shooters classmates been the one to call him out and not the girl herself, maybe, just maybe the results would have been different.

If it becomes so common that unacceptable behavior is called out by each and every observer, victims will no longer have to fear public events. People will become educated on what is and is not acceptable behavior. If another party had interjected in that mediators sexist act and said, "She's a lawyer, let me introduce you to Bob, he's our assistant." But, but allowing the sexist act, the harassment of the girl, the locker room talk, each and every observer is stating to that person; "This behavior is acceptable under these conditions." 

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is doing what is right despite fear.


----------



## Kobold Boots

LordEntrails said:


> When I have advocated in this thread for moving on it is not because I think the past is irrelevant (I've added thoughts on historical relevance). I advocate moving on because "we've beat that dead horse enough".
> 
> Yes,history and context are important, critical even. But continuing to spend time on the past and every possible nuance doesn't help with the current or future enough to warrant continued discussion.
> 
> Diminishing returns. Opportunity Value. More important things to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with this. We, the observers, MUST act when we see something wrong. Even if it is at risk to ourselves. To do otherwise is to allow such behavior to continue. And, who is in more danger if the behavior is called out? The victim, or an observer?
> 
> Had one of the recent shooters classmates been the one to call him out and not the girl herself, maybe, just maybe the results would have been different.
> 
> If it becomes so common that unacceptable behavior is called out by each and every observer, victims will no longer have to fear public events. People will become educated on what is and is not acceptable behavior. If another party had interjected in that mediators sexist act and said, "She's a lawyer, let me introduce you to Bob, he's our assistant." But, but allowing the sexist act, the harassment of the girl, the locker room talk, each and every observer is stating to that person; "This behavior is acceptable under these conditions."
> 
> Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is doing what is right despite fear.




1. I agree that in a life or death situation where what is seen is really clear, that one should act to protect people regardless of the outcomes.
2. I don't agree that using the shooter scenario is a good way to reinforce an opinion about sexual harassment.  I called out Riley for using a glaringly bad example earlier and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call out your less egregious flaw here.

If you're going to support your argument with something and want to sound reasonable, at least try to keep things relative.  

Courage is doing what's right despite fear.
What's right is often determined by greatest good for greatest number of people.
If what's right puts my family at risk, my priority is my family, not what adherence to social elevation might suggest.
Then courage is doing what saves my self (if they depend on me to subsist) despite what I'd want to be doing.  Because I'm the one not acting and getting the stinkeye from people.

Idealism is great but if the down level expression of following it to it's eventual outcome actually hurts people who aren't involved in my crusade, it's not wise.

Sorry to be a bucket of water.
KB


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sadras said:


> I'm not a drinker by any means, but I would find such a policy draconian.




Why? Does drinking have anything to do with playing games or engaging with nerdy stuff? Does banning it at cons exclude people from attending?


----------



## billd91

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why? Does drinking have anything to do with playing games or engaging with nerdy stuff? Does banning it at cons exclude people from attending?




Does it literally exclude anyone? No. But it would make the con a lot less attractive to many of us who enjoy a good, adult beverage with our hobbies. I don't and won't live in a dry county. I don't and won't live in a dry town. I am not particularly interested in going to a dry gaming con either. I'm no alcoholic but I enjoy a good drink.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

billd91 said:


> Does it literally exclude anyone? No. But it would make the con a lot less attractive to many of us who enjoy a good, adult beverage with our hobbies. I don't and won't live in a dry county. I don't and won't live in a dry town. I am not particularly interested in going to a dry gaming con either. I'm no alcoholic but I enjoy a good drink.




I don’t understand. Why would a dry con be less appealing? You go there to drink? 

I also enjoy a good drink, but I have no problem not drinking when I go to a place where the owners or organizers don’t want intoxicants, because it’s super easy to just go somewhere and have a good time without drinking, and it’s heir right to decide whether or not to allow intoxicants at their function. 

It’s also super normal to be barred from drinking at things where kids are in attendance. 

Also, why is the desire to drink at this specific place on this specific weekend more important than the right of others to not have to deal with the lowered inhibitions and thus increased inappropriate behavior that nearly always comes with drinking by large numbers of people? If makin a con “dry” filters out those who aren’t willing to engage in a social event without drinking...good?


----------



## Sadras

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why? Does drinking have anything to do with playing games or engaging with nerdy stuff? Does banning it at cons exclude people from attending?




No, it's more that being able to consume alcohol is a privelege/liberty and taking that away, well that would be removal of such privilege.

Engaging with you on why people might like to drink at a con is neither here nor there. I am talking about stripping away privileges that currently exist.


----------



## Particle_Man

Kobold Boots said:


> It's equally criminal to accuse someone of something they didn't do. (slander)  So your position isn't exactly on the high horse you're speaking from in the above reply.




I can't help noticing that once again some posters seem far more concerned about hypothetical false accusations than about real harassment.

Let's take this apart some more.  You were worried about some scenario where you have saucy sexy talk with your wife in public, and someone calls you out as a sexual offender in public.

That is not, in my opinion, what Caliburn was going to call out.  Caliburn made it clear he will call out much more clear-cut cases of harassment.  Presumably he can tell the difference between that and consensual saucy banter.  Thus you are safe from both an accusation of sexual harrassment after the latter and, presumably, a charge of physical assault after you physically assault this hypothetical accuser.

In addition, let us look at what "calling out" amounts to.  It can vary from "Hey, dude, not cool!" to "Why are you grabbing that 15 year old girl by the breasts and rubbing yourself against her after she asks you to stop? Stop that!"  I assume that in the former calling out there would be plenty of time for your wife to step in and go "its ok, just saucy banter, totally consensual" and that you would agree that in the latter case someone *should* step in and call it out as sexual harassment.


----------



## billd91

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t understand. Why would a dry con be less appealing? You go there to drink?
> 
> I also enjoy a good drink, but I have no problem not drinking when I go to a place where the owners or organizers don’t want intoxicants, because it’s super easy to just go somewhere and have a good time without drinking, and it’s heir right to decide whether or not to allow intoxicants at their function.
> 
> It’s also super normal to be barred from drinking at things where kids are in attendance.
> 
> Also, why is the desire to drink at this specific place on this specific weekend more important than the right of others to not have to deal with the lowered inhibitions and thus increased inappropriate behavior that nearly always comes with drinking by large numbers of people? If makin a con “dry” filters out those who aren’t willing to engage in a social event without drinking...good?




I don't go to cons to drink but I do go to enjoy myself playing games, checking out the new games in the dealer hall, watching some movies if there's a media room, and sharing fellowship with other attendees - often in the hotel bar with an adult beverage in hand. As an adult, I act responsibly and expect the same of others around me - but I also expect to be able to enjoy the privileges of being an adult rather than be nannied because of someone else's irresponsibility. I've got plenty of opportunities to go to conventions that don't ban alcohol - why would I bother to go to one that does? Cons are more fun when I get to play games, watch movies, and share fellowship when I can also have a beer or get a drink with my wife as we unwind from a long day of gaming and walking around the con.


----------



## LordEntrails

(Bolded text my emphasis.)



Kobold Boots said:


> 1. I agree that in a* life or death situation* where what is seen is really clear, that one should act to protect people regardless of the outcomes.
> 2. I don't agree that using the shooter scenario is a good way to reinforce an opinion about sexual harassment.  I called out Riley for using a glaringly bad example earlier and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call out your less egregious flaw here.
> 
> If you're going to support your argument with something and want to sound reasonable, at least try to keep things relative.
> 
> What's right is often determined by* greatest good for greatest number of people*.
> If what's right puts my family at risk, my priority is my family, not what adherence to social elevation might suggest.
> Then *courage is doing what saves my self* (if they depend on me to subsist) despite what I'd want to be doing.  Because I'm the one not acting and getting the stinkeye from people.
> 
> Idealism is great but if the down level expression of following it to it's eventual outcome actually hurts people who aren't involved in my crusade, it's not wise.
> 
> Sorry to be a bucket of water.
> KB




You make it clear that self preservation and self interest are more important than, or are your ideals. That's fine. You are allowed to allow selfishness to drive your actions.

I will quote a translation of Martin Niemoller. You can all read it, contemplate it, and do your own research on the implications.



> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a communist.
> 
> When they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a social democrat.
> 
> When they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a trade unionist.
> 
> When they came for the Jews,
> I remained silent;
> I wasn't a Jew.
> 
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.


----------



## LordEntrails

This whole dry con thing baffles me. I don't go to a lot of cons, but I've been to enough (Gen Con, various Comic Cons, etc) and I have never seen alcohol for sale (except outside the con at license bars etc). I've never seen anyone walking around with a drink in their hand. I've never seen a person drunk at the con.

So, in my experience, every con is already dry. What am I missing?


----------



## cmad1977

LordEntrails said:


> This whole dry con thing baffles me. I don't go to a lot of cons, but I've been to enough (Gen Con, various Comic Cons, etc) and I have never seen alcohol for sale (except outside the con at license bars etc). I've never seen anyone walking around with a drink in their hand. I've never seen a person drunk at the con.
> 
> So, in my experience, every con is already dry. What am I missing?




It’s an attempt to blame anything other than the guilty. 
‘It wasn’t his fault... there was alcohol!’


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sadras said:


> No, it's more that being able to consume alcohol is a privelege/liberty and taking that away, well that would be removal of such privilege.
> 
> Engaging with you on why people might like to drink at a con is neither here nor there. I am talking about stripping away privileges that currently exist.




Its a privelege. If we were talking rights, you’d have a point, but drinking in public isn’t a anything like a right, and indeed is a frequently restricted privelege. 



billd91 said:


> I don't go to cons to drink but I do go to enjoy myself playing games, checking out the new games in the dealer hall, watching some movies if there's a media room, and sharing fellowship with other attendees - often in the hotel bar with an adult beverage in hand. As an adult, I act responsibly and expect the same of others around me - but I also expect to be able to enjoy the privileges of being an adult rather than be nannied because of someone else's irresponsibility. I've got plenty of opportunities to go to conventions that don't ban alcohol - why would I bother to go to one that does? Cons are more fun when I get to play games, watch movies, and share fellowship when I can also have a beer or get a drink with my wife as we unwind from a long day of gaming and walking around the con.




You cant do all that without alcohol, or just...after the con, outside of the con space, without going back in to the con until you’re totally sober? 

Regardless, the con can’t do anything about you and your friends going to the bar after your con-day is done, or going somewhere and having a beer with lunch and coming back. 

They can, and have every right to, say that you cannot have alcohol in th con space, and reserve the right to ask anyone who is intoxicated to leave the con, and disallow them to return entirely, or unless they sober up first. 

None if that that interferes with anything you listed.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

LordEntrails said:


> This whole dry con thing baffles me. I don't go to a lot of cons, but I've been to enough (Gen Con, various Comic Cons, etc) and I have never seen alcohol for sale (except outside the con at license bars etc). I've never seen anyone walking around with a drink in their hand. I've never seen a person drunk at the con.
> 
> So, in my experience, every con is already dry. What am I missing?




Small cons that take place in hotel function rooms with a bar onsite.


----------



## pming

Hiya.

With regard to the whole "...but...alcohol!" thing..., you (generic you here) aren't "allowed" to drive a car, fly a plane, or perform open heart surgery if you are drunk. Why?  I'll put it on a single line so as to not muddy any interpretation...:

_Drinking alcohol *IMPAIRS JUDGEMENT* and *MEMORY*.
_

Someone claiming that it is an "attempt to excuse blame" would be _monumentally naive_, in my humble opinion. Is it an "excuse" or some "get out of jail free" card? Heck no! But dismissing it entirely as not being a factor is not helpful.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Sadras

doctorbadwolf said:
			
		

> Its a privelege. If we were talking rights, you’d have a point, but drinking in public isn’t a anything like a right, and indeed is a frequently restricted privelege.




I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about a freedom/liberty. Whether it is a frequently restricted privilege doesn't mean I'd have to be ok with it being restricted more frequently.


----------



## Riley37

evileeyore said:


> I've volunteered for security at conventions many times.  I know what stupid things men and women get up to when they are drunk and with a largely 'anonymous' crowd.
> 
> Fannon was about the worst of _that_ sort of nonsense.




No matter how hard we disagree on where Zelazny shines and where he's horrible, no matter how much we might dislike each other: here is a sincere, non-sarcastic tip of the hat, in recognition of your service. I've done a little, just checking badges at the entry to the party zone and that sort of thing. (One time, there was a stripper, apparently hired to visit a party room, who lacked a con badge and instead showed me her "badges"... now THAT was an amusing moment.)

FWIW, the worst that I've heard at a Friendly Local Game Store was more vile than anything I've heard, so far, at a any con. If no con ever includes anything so vile, then that's good news.

I would cut slack for a "gollum" username, less because of age 12, and more because Gollum included Smeagol, or what was left of Smeagol. A person openly struggling with their better and worse sides, doesn't rub me the same way as someone *parading* their enthusiasm for kicking puppies, Force Choking anyone whose lack of faith disturbs them, doxxing Felicia Day, and other evil behaviors.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sadras said:


> I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about a freedom/liberty. Whether it is a frequently restricted privilege doesn't mean I'd have to be ok with it being restricted more frequently.




Okay, but that isn’t really an argument against doing it, because there are active reasons to do. More is needed than “I’d rather not”.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Particle_Man said:


> I can't help noticing that once again some posters seem far more concerned about hypothetical false accusations than about real harassment.
> 
> Let's take this apart some more.  You were worried about some scenario where you have saucy sexy talk with your wife in public, and someone calls you out as a sexual offender in public.
> 
> That is not, in my opinion, what Caliburn was going to call out.  Caliburn made it clear he will call out much more clear-cut cases of harassment.




I'd tell you to not be a jerk, but you're well past that mark with your first line.

1. Caliburn did make it clear what he felt was appropriate to call out.
2. Caliburn did not make it clear how exactly he was going to be able to do that in a con setting full of distractions.
3. I called BS, simply because it's difficult to do, hence why there's a problem to solve and he's not the Jesus Christ of miraculous harassment policing; or he'd not be posting here.

*Nuff said, no one thinks that false positives are more important than actual harassment*, but it's really hard to argue against the obvious fact that pointing at harassment without context is a bad idea that causes more false positives and hurts more people than it helps.


----------



## Kobold Boots

LordEntrails said:


> (Bolded text my emphasis.)
> 
> 
> 
> You make it clear that self preservation and self interest are more important than, or are your ideals. That's fine. You are allowed to allow selfishness to drive your actions.
> 
> I will quote a translation of Martin Niemoller. You can all read it, contemplate it, and do your own research on the implications.




All well and good except for one flaw in your reasoning..

1. Following your ideals instead of considering how they impact others you love, is the epitome of self-interest regardless of what outcome they result in and selfish.

2. If you love someone enough to care for them, provide for them and make it such that they can have a life without their having to work 9-5, they rely on you.  If I were to suddenly decide that I wanted to explore my Captain America complex and that resulted in my going after Nazis (your example, certainly only mine to make a point); my wife and family would suffer.

My higher responsibility is to my family because that is the social contract I have.  I'm not going to save the Jews (again, your horrible and completely inappropriate example, just to make the point.)

Ethics and Ideals are great as guideposts but you can't live your life by them unless you only care about yourself (irony)


----------



## evileeyore

Hussar said:


> Wait, what?  Andre Norton as sexist?  You do realize that most of her later works featured strong female protagonists and she's generally considered a pretty strong feminist writer, right?  Sure, some of her early works might be a bit problematic, but, I suggest you read the Witch World series if you think Andre Norton is sexist.



1 - I dug a bit deeper, and you're right, it's only her early works that are sexist against women.  In the early to mid 70's she started using female protags and shifted away from women as only background furniture in her stories.

2 - One can be sexist against men.  In her later stories her themes are more and more about the evil that is male and it's reliance on evil technology.  Now, this was a bit sketchy of a source, so I'm willing let this one go.  As I said, I don't read Norton, her stories never appealed to me.






Maxperson said:


> They don't hate men.



Well... actually...  I went back and reread the Complete Book of Elves.  They've [Drow Females] a pretty big hate on for male dominated cultures and believe that males must, for their own good*, be oppressed.


* Because they are weaker and stupider.







Caliburn101 said:


> What disturbs me the most about the fact it isn't yet dealt with is that despite reasonable policies being in existence for quite a long time now, there is still a fear of acting.



Because you don't understand the cravenness of human nature.  Most people just want to 'get by' and 'make no ripples'.  So, usually, unless someone seems to be in serious imminent harm, most people will literally just walk on by.


And then there are the real cravens who upon witnessing serious harm being committed, will continue on their way afraid of some nebulous reprisal should they step in or call in outside authority.






Doug McCrae said:


> The racism of an artistic work does not depend upon intent, it depends upon the work itself.



When you remove intent from the equation, all things can be racist/sexist/ableist/etcist.

Intent always matters.






lowkey13 said:


> Notice the amount of pushback a simple observation like this has caused?



It wasn't an observation, it was an assertion.  And one many of us disagree with:  that is, 'roleplaying is sexist/racist/etcist because of these things'.



> It is neither an attack, nor a defense, to say that EGG was not a racist. I don't believe that the original artists in G1 were "racist" because the chose to illustrate male drow with curly black hair...



This is part of the problem.  Two pictures, out of all the depictions of the Drow, feature tight Latino style oiled curls, and somehow that erases all the depictions of them with long flowing straight hair.  Somehow three* pictures have made the Drow a 'racist depiction'.


*  I'll toss in the Parkinson GD1-7 Queen of the Spiders cover here as well.



> Same with Keith Parkinson in 1986- why not make the drow most realistic by giving them "realistic" skin tones based on ... well, you know.



A need to fit the tones present int eh art?  Likely another artistic choice as jet-black tones would have looked terrible with that dark background.  Where as mocha colored (which at the time I wouldn't have even taken as being 'black'*, literally all the blacks I'd ever met had _much_ darker skin) fits the tones of the piece much better (though, they could have had striking jet-black skin with a more lightly colored background and that might have been even more stunning).


* I actually thought at the time that the drow were supposed to be 'Hispanic'.  I knew a lot of Mexicans with that skin color and that 'poofy '80's hair' (it was the 80's after all)... and a friend I gamed with had those tight oiled curls of the two pictures of drow in _G3_.


Sidenote, it occurs to me that _Conan the Destroyer_ had just come out (two years previous) so the skin color choice may have been influenced by Grace Jones' awesomeness in the film.



> To give you an example- a retired BigWig is a mediator. Towards the end of the mediation, he needs a copy made of some documents. Instead of asking any of the attorneys present, he leaves the room, and goes into the office of a younger female attorney and asks her to make copies. Does that mean he's an evil person? A raging misogynist? No, of course not. What it does mean is that he shares basic societal assumptions that aren't correct- that men do the work, and that women (especially in certain professions) support the men.



Or maybe he felt that the younger attorney's time was less valuable than the senior attorneys in the meeting with him.

When you erase intent you can make anything 'ist'.



> But if we can't even acknowledge, in a healthy, non-finger pointing way, the systemic issues of the past, how can we possibly move forward?



What we are disagreeing on is whether something was an issue, not to mention whether it was then (if we agree it was an issue) 'systemic'.

Was there systemic 'cheesecakeism'?  Yes.  Was it actually sexist?  I'm willing to not argue against it*, but did it actually drive women away from the hobby?  I knew female roleplayers back in the day, they existed.  I always felt that the label of 'nerd' and 'geek' that came along with playing D&D was the bigger force driving them away from the hobby as the gamer girls† I knew were already geeks or nerds before they found D&D.  But I knew many, many non-geek/nerds guys† that gamed.


* I have argued for it, but I'm engaging in some minor Devil's Advocacy at this exact moment here.

† And I don't mean 'and girl/boyfriends'.  I mean they gamed not because their SO was gaming, but because they enjoyed it themselves.






Riley37 said:


> FWIW, the worst that I've heard at a Friendly Local Game Store was more vile than anything I've heard, so far, at a any con. If no con ever includes anything so vile, then that's good news.



It's terrible that your local gaming store has such terrible people/person going there.  Hopefully the individual was dealt with?



> ...doesn't rub me the same way as someone *parading* their enthusiasm for kicking puppies, Force Choking anyone whose lack of faith disturbs them, doxxing Felicia Day, and other evil behaviors.



'Evil' came from the movie _Fright Night_.  When I was a wee lad (10-12) apparently I looked like and laughed like the character in that movie.   'Eeyore' came in high school when I turned horribly cynical and fatalist for several years ("No point in coming in out of the rain, just gonna get wet again tomorrow").


See how removing intent and context can change everything?


----------



## Doug McCrae

evileeyore said:


> When you remove intent from the equation, all things can be racist/sexist/ableist/etcist.
> 
> Intent always matters.



I certainly don't consider every work to be racist. An example of one that isn't is Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained, because, going against the grain of the rest of the film it contains one major white character who is good and one major black character who is evil. But these things are rarely clearcut and always open to further argument - that's the nature of artistic interpretation. It's okay to offer critiques of art from a wide variety of standpoints, and a variety of thresholds as to what counts as discrimination.

Another example - Lord of the Rings (the novel) is, imo, mildly sexist because it offers no female protagonists and several male protagonists. But otoh it does a good job of presenting a wide variety of female characters both good and evil, Galadriel and Eowyn possess many admirable qualities, and there is even what I would consider to be a feminist viewpoint when Eowyn argues with Theoden that she should be allowed to fight.

Authorial intent isn't necessary for this analysis. And how would we ever determine it anyway? We can't see into the author's mind. All we have are texts, and other forms of communication.


----------



## Catulle

Intent/outcome dichotomy, as ever. Without an inquisitorial or adversarial system for sifting things through in a formal setting, which a con is neither able nor required to provide, we rely on outcome-focused approaches, as we should if the intent is to alter behavior over the longer term.


----------



## Riley37

evileeyore said:


> 2 - One can be sexist against men.




Take this with grain of salt and Protection Versus Pedantry: Some people use some words differently than others. As you use the word, women can be sexist. As some others use the word, no, because of a fine distinction, which I will try to explain briefly.

Some people distinguish between unfair, hateful prejudices which have support from police and judges, versus unfair, hateful prejudices which do not. In that usage, a white person who calls the police because a black person was holding a BB gun, in a store, in the aisle where the store sells BB guns, in an "open carry" state, is practicing racism; the caller has the unfair, hateful prejudice, AND the person (accurately) expects the police to show up and kill the black person. Meanwhile, a black person who calls the cops to report an "armed and dangerous" white person, in the same aisle of the same store, is ALSO acting on hateful, unfair *prejudice*, but the outcome is not *racism*, because the outcome will be different. (I don't know exactly what those cops would have done, if the caller had been black and the guy with the BB gun had been white. RIP John Crawford III.)

I lack authority on your usage; I also lack authority on whether you pronounce .gif as "jiff". FYI, if someone says "Women can't be sexist!", the "prejudice" versus "prejudice plus power" theory is probably the rationale.



evileeyore said:


> Intent always matters.




Sometimes outcome matters even more. As an example: Fannon. He didn't have the *intent* to make anyone uncomfortable; he intended some consensual happysexyfun. That wasn't always the outcome. Some cons may take active measures to prevent repetitions of the actual outcome.

Caliburne101 has good intentions. Some of us have some doubts about the likely outcomes of the way he'll act on those intentions. I consider those doubts reasonable, until and unless Caliburne101 gives a better articulation of his "Identify Friend or Foe" process and his de-escalation methods.

In situations other than gaming conventions, there have been disjunctions between intention and outcome with much higher stakes. Those Soviet technicians *intended* a check of the safety systems of the reactor at Chernobyl...



evileeyore said:


> It's terrible that your local gaming store has such terrible people/person going there.  Hopefully the individual was dealt with?




I spoke up at the time, both as a player and in character (was playing a paladin at the time). Afterwards, I told the DM that I would not be back, and I specified what behavior was the dealbreaker. The DM apologized. What that DM does from then on, with that player, I leave in his hands. (shrug) 



evileeyore said:


> 'Eeyore' came in high school when I turned horribly cynical and fatalist for several years ("No point in coming in out of the rain, just gonna get wet again tomorrow").




I have a fondness for Eeyore, in that he seems to suffer from severe chronic depression or something similar, and yet none of his friends ever tell him to be cheerful. Maybe they should encourage him to ask a psychiatrist about medication (maybe SSRIs), exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy, but at least they don't ask him "have you tried enjoying life?" as if that were some magical solution.



evileeyore said:


> See how removing intent and context can change everything?




I'd say what's happened so far, is not *removing* intent and context, but *revealing* it. When you mentioned that you had volunteered for security work at cons, yeah, that caused a major shift on my assessment of you. I'm still not saying that we'd get along well at a game table, but if I were trying to de-escalate a confrontation at a con, and I called for help, I'd want you there.


----------



## Particle_Man

Kobold Boots said:


> I'd tell you to not be a jerk, but you're well past that mark with your first line.
> 
> 1. Caliburn did make it clear what he felt was appropriate to call out.
> 2. Caliburn did not make it clear how exactly he was going to be able to do that in a con setting full of distractions.
> 3. I called BS, simply because it's difficult to do, hence why there's a problem to solve and he's not the Jesus Christ of miraculous harassment policing; or he'd not be posting here.
> 
> *Nuff said, no one thinks that false positives are more important than actual harassment*, but it's really hard to argue against the obvious fact that pointing at harassment without context is a bad idea that causes more false positives and hurts more people than it helps.




Harder still when you coach it in terms of violence.  Assuming that was not internet tough guy smack talk, I find it odd that violence would be your go to response. You probably know that there are other ways to defend yourself against accusations and getting yourself kicked out of a con, and possibly jailed, seems like a poor one, since it would mark you as a person that gets violent when verbally accused, which would also not be a good person to have at a con  if we are talking about people (other than your immediate family) feeling safe at cons.

Why would you go to violence rather than use your words to defend yourself? Why not allow your wife to use her words to defend you? That would, if you are falsely accused, be a far better way to oppose an on site accuser, and would not get you kicked out or jailed. You could also call con security to talk to that accuser.

In fact, I am not yet sure that you and Caliburn would be that far apart on what behaviour should be called out. How about you give a specific example of saucy banter with your wife that you would engage in at a con and then Caliburn can state, perhaps after some sorting out of details and context, what response he would give to that specific behaviour. I mean, as long as you are both here we might as well see if you actually have a disagreement here.


----------



## Riley37

LordEntrails said:


> I will quote a translation of Martin Niemoller. You can all read it, contemplate it, and do your own research on the implications.




On one hand, I would love for anyone who is not yet aware of Niemoller's poem, to consider how closely it applies to their present situation.

On another hand, let's scale our arguments to the stakes at hand*. Heather Heyer lived and died by Niemoller's principles. She has my respect as a fallen hero. GenCon is not "Unite the Right". Not yet, anyways. Kobold Boots explicitly said that he saw immediate threat to anyone's life, as grounds for immediate action. Let's take him at his word, on that point, when we discuss appropriate responses to lower-stakes threats than the Holocaust.

On a third hand, EN World has a "fine people on both sides" policy. Some of the people posting in this thread may be Republicans; others Democrats; there may be a few Libertarians among us; there may be members of the Conservative Party of Canada, or the Labour party in Britain, or perhaps the Greens. It's also possible that some of us are among the 400ish members of the National Socialist Movement in the USA, and/or the Nationalist Party of Canada. (Nor let us omit our South African participants, if any belong to the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging!)

EN World welcomes gamers of all political backgrounds, so long as we follow the rules of the house. Anti-fascism is not a consensus expectation here. Neither is feminism, nor women's suffrage, nor abolitionism.

*Kobold Boots, you might be surprised to hear me say so. I see a continuum, from the example I mentioned, to other lethal forms of toxic machismo, such what happened to Shana Fisher in Santa Fe, to men who merely threaten (verbally or otherwise) when women turn them down, to men who push, push and keep pushing when a woman's first answer isn't yes. If you don't see that continuum, then we disagree. Call me out all you want; I stand my ground, I'll double down. (shrug) That said, I'm happy to turn the topic back, again and again, to behavior at cons.

On that point: Has anyone at a con ever responded to romantic rejection with a threat of violence?


----------



## evileeyore

Riley37 said:


> Take this with grain of salt and Protection Versus Pedantry: Some people use some words differently than others.



Oh, I know.  I said it that way to see if Hussar believes that women can never be sexist.



> I lack authority on your usage; I also lack authority on whether you pronounce .gif as "jiff".



Serious Answer - hard g.

Comedy Answer - 'Jiffy'.  Or "What is this 'jif' heresy!"



> FYI, if someone says "Women can't be sexist!", the "prejudice" versus "prejudice plus power" theory is probably the rationale.



So women and minorities can never be the ones in power?




> Sometimes outcome matters even more.



Outcome _always_ matters more.  But that doesn't mean 'always ignore intent'.  Ignoring intent (ala Death Of The Author) is tied very strongly into the modern politics of post-modern decontructionism... and that's about as far down that train of thought this thread needs.  So I try to inject some reality into discussions where I think it applies.



> As an example: Fannon. He didn't have the *intent* to make anyone uncomfortable; he intended some consensual happysexyfun. That wasn't always the outcome.



Correct, and it's his intentions that are informing (some) people as to whether they want to go 'easy' on him over it or not.  Counterpoint Harvey Weinstein whose intent was equally clear...



> Some cons may take active measures to prevent repetitions of the actual outcome.



Which is reasonable.  The main thrust of this thread after all is the argument as to what might be construed as 'reasonable' active measures.



> I'm still not saying that we'd get along well at a game table...



I'm sure we'd be fine at a gaming table and utter enemies at a political rally.


----------



## Riley37

evileeyore said:


> So women and minorities can never be the ones in power?




I'm not making an essentialist claim; I'm suggesting situationalist usage of certain words. Drow women, in the Drow homeland, hold most positions of power, and therefore can be sexist!

Minorities can hold power, and often do. White people are a minority of the seven billion humans, yet in many nations, including mine, white people often dominate police departments, judiciaries, and other such institutions. Even where white people are *locally* a minority, such as South Africa, apartheid was effectively a white supremacist regime. See also: Norman rule in Saxon England.

If you were using "minorities" as a euphemism for "nonwhite," or if you were projecting 1950s USA demographic ratios as if they applied globally, then consider the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. I don't know how it was to be white in the Sphere. It was generally an advantage to be Japanese, relative to Han, Korean, or Filipino.

"I am a Roman citizen" (civis Romanus sum) was a claim of social advantage and legal status, in many lands, for many years. I don't know how the phenotypes of the Romans compared to other phenotypes across the Empire; it's an oddly unmentioned topic, at least in books published in the USA. Anyways, if you're trying to catch me interpreting all of human history, according to the ephemera of my native continent and century, then "go fish".



evileeyore said:


> Which is reasonable.  The main thrust of this thread after all is the argument as to what might be construed as 'reasonable' active measures.




I consider that an optimistic view of the thread, since the intent of taking active measures to discourage or deter harassment isn't exactly consensus among the participants. But it might be a useful outcome.



evileeyore said:


> I'm sure we'd be fine at a gaming table and utter enemies at a political rally.




See you at Unite the Right II, then. If, at that event, it turns out that we're on the same side, then I won't care much about our positions on lesser issues. Orwell found common cause with Churchill, when that became absolutely necessary.


----------



## LordEntrails

Kobold Boots said:


> All well and good except for one flaw in your reasoning..
> ...
> My higher responsibility is to my family because that is the social contract I have.  I'm not going to save the Jews (again, your horrible and completely inappropriate example, just to make the point.)
> 
> Ethics and Ideals are great as guideposts but you can't live your life by them unless you only care about yourself (irony)



Here is another fine example of the challenge of forum based discussions; the desire for some to assume absolutes in the statements or positions of others. I never said or implied in absolutes, or that obligations to my family or other social contracts are not part of my ideals or impact of 'doing what's right."

I doubt you are actually advocating absolutes either, but it seems you would side with your family over the greater good. You feel that your social obligation to your family exceeds your social obligation to society. In a zombie apocalypse you would kill other non-zombies in a bid to keep your family safe. (Example used to help describe what I'm trying to say, NOT to actually imply what your actions might be or the value of such an example.)

Such views are fine. My views are different from what I understand yours to be. If my brother threatened through illegal or immoral means the lives of thousands, I would step in to stop them, even though I have a social obligation to protect him.

So, if you feel protecting your family and not exposing yourself to an extremely small risk of violence by interjecting yourself in the "business of others" that is fine. But then it is .... disingenous ? for you to argue that you are concerned with harassment of others at cons? And we you, or your family member ever to be the victim, you really wouldn't have much right to complain if their were a dozen observers watching while your family member is harassed, beaten or worse. Because you wouldn't have done the same to help someone else. Or am I wrong in what you are saying?



Riley37 said:


> On one hand, I would love for anyone who is not yet aware of Niemoller's poem, to consider how closely it applies to their present situation.
> 
> On another hand, let's scale our arguments to the stakes at hand*. Heather Heyer lived and died by Niemoller's principles. She has my respect as a fallen hero. GenCon is not "Unite the Right". Not yet, anyways. ...




I will say, that at the beginning, when "they came for the communists" it was not a particularly life or death situation (yes their was violence that resulted in death, but that was more, imo, about standards of the time). It is never is 'serious' at the beginning.

Am I saying that harassment at a con will lead to the Holocaust or similar? No. In their own ways, hundreds and thousands of years of violence, denigration and second class human status is just as horrendous as the death of millions within a few years. Both are horrible, and both should be considered unacceptable.

I think the scale is relevant. But not particularly important. My main point was not about the Holocaust, it is that if you (Kobold Boots specifically) believe it is more important to stay uninvolved, then when something bad happens to you or one you care about, then you better not expect anyone else to help out. Not if their is the slightest bit of danger to the helper/observer.

Such a place, without courage, is not a place I wish to live in.


----------



## Morrus

Kobold Boots said:


> I'd tell you to not be a jerk, but you're well past that mark with your first line.




When you're down to calling people names, it's time to leave the thread, please.


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> Notice the amount of pushback a simple observation like this has caused? No one said, "Hey, that EGG, he was a raging racist and sexist who was trying to advance white power and males uber alles with the drow!" No, instead people were discussing, in fairly reasonable terms, how depictions of the drow reflected a lot of baggage- racial and sexist baggage.




If the drow race was designed with no real world race in mind, but rather with day/night, good/evil concept in mind, then no racial baggage exists inherent in drow.  Someone can come up, look at the race, and believe that there is some racial connection, but that doesn't reflect any baggage in drow.  It reflects the beliefs and perceptions of the person looking at the drow race.  



> To give you an example- a retired BigWig is a mediator. Towards the end of the mediation, he needs a copy made of some documents. Instead of asking any of the attorneys present, he leaves the room, and goes into the office of a younger female attorney and asks her to make copies. Does that mean he's an evil person? A raging misogynist? No, of course not. What it does mean is that he shares basic societal assumptions that aren't correct- that men do the work, and that women (especially in certain professions) support the men. And while this particular event isn't super-harmful in and of itself, imagine the toll of these events on this young women's career, over time, each piling on to the next. This wasn't some Mad Men flashback, by the way, this was this year.




Why does it have to mean that?  Why can't it mean that he wants to get back to working on the mediation while the copies are made, which requires those inside?  What if the mediation has gone long, which often happens, and the paralegals and other office staff are gone?  The female attorney might be the only one who can help them.  

It seems from the last sentence that this was a real example that you witnessed, so I'm sure you have more information than you shared here.  But what if it wasn't that and instead it was an alternative reason like my questions above suggest could possibly be the case, and she incorrectly assumed that it was a misogynistic request?  At what point do allow or disallow misperceptions to control what we do?


----------



## Riley37

LordEntrails said:


> I will say, that at the beginning, when "they came for the communists" it was not a particularly life or death situation (yes their was violence that resulted in death, but that was more, imo, about standards of the time). It is never is 'serious' at the beginning.




Whoah. Have you studied 1930s Germany, at ALL? When the Third Reich came for the communists, there was little to no reasonable doubt that death was on the line. Yes, there was a build-up, in which it was easy for many Germans, such as Niemoller, to look the other way. There was no honest basis for ignorance, though. Some people were clinging to hope, some were in denial, some responded to his writings and his speeches with "well, he didn't really mean THAT". (Contemporary parallels are obvious.) He published Mein Kampf in 1925, and from then on, there was no reasonable doubt that he intended genocide. "Mein Kampf" even specified the method of poison gas for killing Jews by the thousands. Come on, man. That is a passage of history which is WAY too important, for you to re-write, so that you can justify your argument about where Kobold Boots and Caliburne101 draw the line about reacting on the fly to incidents at a con.

If your only exposure to the history of the rise of the Third Reich is some cursory summary in a high school history course, then that's fine, EN World welcomes gamers of all education levels. But please, please don't speak as if you had expertise, on this topic of all topics, *unless you actually have it*. Or unless you can acquire it; start with Wikipedia, follow links to sources, and in a few hours, you'll know things such as when Mein Kampf was published, and how specifically it detailed the plan which unfolded across the following twenty years.

Also, besides whether it's OK to distort the historical context of Niemoller's poem, it's dishonest to disregard the part where Kobold Boots said "1. I agree that in a life or death situation where what is seen is really clear, that one should act to protect people regardless of the outcomes." Yeah, he then raises the issue of balancing that against family obligations. You're not improving the conversation by taking that as an *absolute* declaration that he'd let thousands or millions die, rather than abandon his wife... because *at a con*, those aren't the stakes at hand, and he wrote *a post in a thread about harassment at cons*.

If you must bring in a poem, to establish moral high ground, how about instead, a poem by someone who survived sexual harassment? Heck, how about the court statement from the woman whom Brock Turner assaulted, and what it meant to her, that two random guys, passing by on bicycles, stopped to investigate and then to intervene? It would be just as powerful, if not more, and it would be at least vaguely on topic.

"I sleep with two bicycles that I drew taped above my bed to remind myself there are heroes in this story. That we are looking out for one another. To have known all of these people, to have felt their protection and love, is something I will never forget." - Emily Doe, Palo Alto, 2016


----------



## Bagpuss

Morrus said:


> When you're down to calling people names, it's time to leave the thread, please.




But inferring someone is Alt-Right is fine?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If the drow race was designed with no real world race in mind, but rather with day/night, good/evil concept in mind, then no racial baggage exists inherent in drow.  Someone can come up, look at the race, and believe that there is some racial connection, but that doesn't reflect any baggage in drow.  It reflects the beliefs and perceptions of the person looking at the drow race.



This seems like little more than pettifogging obfuscation.

Stuff can have "baggage" whether or not someone intends it. Stuff has "baggage" because of the responses it evokes, the attitudes it confirms or leads to, the actual situation in which it happens to turn up. Sometimes that catches an author by surprise - well, that can happen! Life is full of surprises, and social interactions not the least.


----------



## Morrus

Bagpuss said:


> But inferring someone is Alt-Right is fine?




Bagpuss, you've been here nearly 20 years. You know not to argue with moderators. Don't post again in this thread, please.


----------



## Sadras

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, but that isn’t really an argument against doing it, because there are active reasons to do. More is needed than “I’d rather not”.




You replied to my post where I mentioned that to me it would be draconian to just ban alcohol at cons.
You decided to evaluate my fun of alcohol at cons i.e. That I was having BadWrongFun. I explained to you my issue was with a liberty being lost.

If you would like to shift the conversation to *we need to ban alcohol to curb harassment* be brave enough to make that case do not hide behind questions such as:
_Why do you need alcohol at cons can you not have a good time without alcohol? You think people will not go to dry cons?_ etc.


----------



## Morrus

It's time to put this one to sleep. I got back to work to find people calling each other names, arguing with moderators, Godwinning the place, and reporting each others' posts left right and centre. I certainly don't have the metal fortitude right now to read all this. Say goodnight, everybody!


----------

