# Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game



## Ancalagon (Jun 1, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-e...3g4q91-6v2nxO0JhS9A5lM5CGLG-Do5cweTDQaQHg2vQs

... I really didn't know what was appropriate for the title, so I just used the article's.  I'm appalled that even in 2019 this is still happening.  Who on earth thinks this is ok?!?


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 1, 2019)

Why would anyone do this? *Especially* in a public setting like a con. Even in a home game where you generally discuss what is okay and not okay, how do people even come up with this idea?!

This is distressing indeed.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 1, 2019)

I run into enough people at tables who have an odd fixation with holes and putting things in them that I suspect people underestimate the total number of people who would attempt to incorporate this into a game.

It's one of the many reasons there are express efforts to "clean up" our hobby.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-e...3g4q91-6v2nxO0JhS9A5lM5CGLG-Do5cweTDQaQHg2vQs
> 
> ... I really didn't know what was appropriate for the title, so I just used the article's.  I'm appalled that even in 2019 this is still happening.  *Who on earth thinks this is ok?!?*



Someone who probably needs to be watched very closely.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 2, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Someone who probably needs to be watched very closely.




Very likely this.


----------



## uzirath (Jun 2, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> I run into enough people at tables who have an odd fixation with holes and putting things in them that I suspect people underestimate the total number of people who would attempt to incorporate this into a game.




I, too, have observed this fixation, even at public store events. It's one reason that it is so important to diversify the hobby. Some of my all-male groups in high school (a very long time ago) made a lot of inappropriate sexual jokes. It got to the point at some tables that there were just running gags all the time. When I got to college and started playing in more diverse groups (gender, sexual orientation, race, religion... all the axes), those sorts of things disappeared and the games were much better for it.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 2, 2019)

Just saw jonrog1 posting about this on Twitter and, Jesus Christ, why? This is basically the RPG equivalent of those some of the sickest "prank" videos on YouTube.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 2, 2019)

uzirath said:


> I, too, have observed this fixation, even at public store events.




Yeah, it was quite disturbing how willing these people were to be public with their "fixations" like they got some kind of extra kick about doing it in public.


----------



## The Monster (Jun 2, 2019)

I remember this kind of thing cropping up in stories & rumors back in the '80s. I was appalled by it then (even as a brash & clueless 20-year-old), and my opinion has not changed. That GM should simply be blacklisted from all RPG events. I'd never sit at the same table with him in any case.


----------



## ccs (Jun 2, 2019)

Hmm.  One failed Wisdom check later....

Should not run that stuff without the right group 1st & definitely not at a convention with/around strangers.


----------



## LordEntrails (Jun 2, 2019)

The article was quite clear; What the GM did was against the written rules, was not included in the game description, and the person was thrown out and banned from all future attendance. Apologies were given by the Con, and they have done what they can to help those affected by it.

Exactly what should have been done, and nothing else should really be expected. No point in the community blowing up over this. Just like when someone is arrested for indecent exposure, etc. Their are rules to handle this, it was handled as it should have been. Event over.



Immortal Sun said:


> Yeah, it was quite disturbing how willing these people were to be public with their "fixations" like they got some kind of extra kick about doing it in public.




Yep, some do. And the best thing to do is to handle it quickly, openly, and relatively quietly.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 2, 2019)

I'm going to count this as a win for the gaming community.  There was a bad actor and the organizers of the con not only dealt with the situation appropriately they also offered their apologizes as well as assistance to those affected.  

I run a lot of horror games and I always ask my players to let me know what they don't want to see in the campaign.  And I make it clear that I don't need to know why they don't want something in a game I just want to make sure I'm avoiding anything that upsets them.  One of the examples I give them is that we'll never role play a scenario where anyone is being sexually assaulted.  It might happen to an NPC off screen (unless a player specifically says they never want the subject to come up during the game) but we'll never play it out and I'll never have it happen to their characters.  Even in a private setting I wouldn't role play that out and I can scarcely imagine someone doing it in a public setting with people he didn't know.


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 2, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> ... I really didn't know what was appropriate for the title, so I just used the article's.  I'm appalled that even in 2019 this is still happening.  Who on earth thinks this is ok?!?




Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of people who think it's okay. I just made the mistake of reading a Reddit thread in which it appeared the majority of posters were of the opinion that what the GM did was perfectly fine and that the players were just being too sensitive.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 2, 2019)

"The GM has been ejected from the show, which runs until Sunday, and is banned from future events."

Future UK Expo events, that is. He might show up at GenCon in August. Anyone here who has any pull with any convention organizers: please consider the option of contacting UK Expo, getting this guy's name, and making a plan for what you'll do if he registers.

A convention could accept his registration, and set someone to keeping an eye on his behavior. A convention could accept his resignation, send him a letter explaining that they're concerned about his track record and advising him explicitly of their code of conduct. A convention could choose to not accept his registration, refund his payment, and pre-emptively ban him; this is a strong move, but it also might be the safest and easiest.

From the BBC article: the GM "told us he enjoyed the shock factor of it". There is a somewhat politicized term: edgelord. "An edgelord is someone on an internet forum who deliberately talks about controversial, offensive, taboo, or nihilistic subjects in order to shock other users in an effort to appear cool, or edgy." How many threads on EN World have been closed by a moderator, after the usual regulars pushed them over the edge? How many threads here have included complaints that sensitivity is ruining TRPG?


----------



## John R Davis (Jun 2, 2019)

Unfortunately D&D may get some bad press as that's the big game and mentioned in the bbc article
The game was Tales from the Flood...….how the GM thought a game about 14 year olds should have 18+ content is beyond me

UKGE dealt with it very well. Its a very well run con and I had a great time there yesterday


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 2, 2019)

John R Davis said:


> Unfortunately D&D may get some bad press as that's the big game and mentioned in the bbc article
> The game was Tales from the Flood...….how the GM thought a game about 14 year olds should have 18+ content is beyond me
> 
> UKGE dealt with it very well. Its a very well run con and I had a great time there yesterday




I thought that the system was irrelevant (ie this is bad, period), but it being Tales from the Flood makes it worse - the PCs are under-aged.  I hope that [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] 's hope comes through - that major cons find who this is and pre-ban him.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 2, 2019)

mrm1138 said:


> Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of people who think it's okay. I just made the mistake of reading a Reddit thread in which it appeared the majority of posters were of the opinion that what the GM did was perfectly fine and that the players were just being too sensitive.




In the latest version of Vampire the Masquerade the authors write about the importance of making sure everyone at the table is comfortable with the contents of the game.  Even though Vampire is about horrible people doing horrible things that isn't an excuse to be a jerk and force something on the player they don't want any part of.  I was surprised by a contingent of critics who argued that this infantilized the player base.  After all, what do people expect from a game where the player characters are predators whose victims are people?  

Rather than infantilize their player base they're treating them like adults.  The authors are encouraging the players to communicate with one another to decide for themselves how they're going to play the game.  But there are some people out there who see anyone with an aversion to a particular subject as being overly sensitive.  Which just strikes me as silly.


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 2, 2019)

I just realized that the thread I saw was from the Kotaku In Action subreddit, so of course it's going to be full of edgelords who think people are sensitive snowflakes. Never mind, their view in this matter doesn't really count.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 2, 2019)

ccs said:


> Hmm.  One failed Wisdom check later....
> 
> Should not run that stuff without the right group 1st & definitely not at a convention with/around strangers.




What's the "right group" for kidnapping and gang-raping the PCs without any discussion or consent? Hell, even with discussion and consent?


----------



## Xaelvaen (Jun 2, 2019)

I'm fairly conservative when it comes to freedom of speech, so what people do in their private games is fine by me - key word being *private* of course.  In a public setting, with strangers, and no forewarning, permission, or anything?  Revolting.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 2, 2019)

Any rape or anything, nope. We have kicked GM's from the group, it's why some of us get asked to GM all the time, because we can run an interesting game without resorting to "shock", and some aren't allowed to GM.


----------



## mythago (Jun 2, 2019)

LordEntrails said:


> Yep, some do. And the best thing to do is to handle it quickly, openly, and relatively quietly.




Why 'relatively quietly' (which is somewhat of a contradiction to 'openly')? Nothing is served by shutting up and agreeing never to speak of it again. For one thing, the convention's quick and decisive response is a good model for other groups to follow. For another, it's great PR for gaming to be a more welcoming place that it's historically been.


----------



## LordEntrails (Jun 2, 2019)

mythago said:


> Why 'relatively quietly' (which is somewhat of a contradiction to 'openly')? Nothing is served by shutting up and agreeing never to speak of it again. For one thing, the convention's quick and decisive response is a good model for other groups to follow. For another, it's great PR for gaming to be a more welcoming place that it's historically been.



'Relatively quietly' because what value is it to blow it up and make it the front page? Those that need to know, know. 

I never said or even implied that anyone should be "shutting up and agreeing to never speak of it again." Quite contradictory to what I said. It almost seems like you just want to start some big, useless, internet debate.

We agreed it was handled appropriately. It has been socialize/publicized to the community. Nothing more needs to be said about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2019)

Gauging how quiet is too quiet is tricky, though.

Not that I’m at the nexus of all things gaming, but I wouldn’t have heard of this without this thread in particular.  I’d think that this guy’s ID should be shared with other persons and organizations running conversations.  *WORLDWIDE.*

Think of it like the anti-hooligan regulations that exist in the soccer world.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2019)

LordEntrails said:


> Exactly what should have been done, and nothing else should really be expected. No point in the community blowing up over this.




I think we can talk about things which are important to us.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 3, 2019)

I've used settings in which things like Orcs raping victims occur in the background and ran a demon corrupted Monstary where corrupted monks were implied to pedophiles, and one of my characters was captured and tortured by bandits (three of his fingers were cut off) but still it is never okay for PCs to be victims of rape or for anyone to go through the process of describing it to them. 

This particular DM needs therapy, thinking it was okay to introduce shock value into a public con was entirely inappropriate


----------



## LordEntrails (Jun 3, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I think we can talk about things which are important to us.



Absolutely. Talk, discuss. Guess I'm just expecting a bunch of hyperbole and uninformed statements of socio-political blah.

But, obviously not something I should or care to engage in, so I will remove myself from the thread.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 3, 2019)

It is somewhat encouraging that this was dealt with quickly and publicly.  I have a sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant past, this sort of thing would be brushed off as "boys being boys" and likely never even addressed.  The fact that players can actually bring attention to this and not be immediately dogpiled for being "too sensitive" (outside, apparently, some fringe Reddit comments) is actually something good I think we can take away from this.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 3, 2019)

There will always be those in this hobby who just don't get it; people who don't have properly developed concepts regarding appropriate behavior (in public OR private), courtesy, decorum, etc.  They flew "under the radar" for a LONG time, with such actions being overlooked or tolerated when they should have been roundly condemned and faithfully chased out.  I think the hobby is playing catch-up as far as that goes.  It's reaching a wider audience and drawing more attention at the same time that tolerance for such behavior ANYWHERE has now worn all but completely away.  Even with exemplary self-policing at stores and cons the "neanderthals" are going to slip through from time to time.  You don't expect to change human nature, you just _reach _for the best and do what you can to keep the darker side and the worst people as strongly in check as possible - same as everywhere else in life.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 3, 2019)

I'm always astounded at people's capacity for stupidity and evil.  This sort of horror story always sounds made up, simply because it's so unbelievable that anyone would do this sort of thing.  And yet, it keeps happening apparently again and again.

Also, "shock value" is so trite and overrated.  After Charles Baudelaire cornered that market like 150 years ago, if you are still thinking you are being edgy by being "shocking", you are just stupid and ignorant.   Nothing so proves the inability to write and create by resorting to "shocking" elements.  If your RPG seems like it could use a character translator between F.A.T.A.L. and back, you really need to reevaluate what you are doing with your life.

The really interesting assertion for me in this thread though was the idea that at some time in the past this would have been considered acceptable.  I've never been into the Con scene, and obviously I'm a "prude" and a lot of things don't fly with me that might fly with some other groups (and I could list some designers as proof of that), but it's hard for me to imagine a group that I've been in which wouldn't get wierded out by some GM running a psycho-sexual scenario.   Like we all firmly want to keep that sort of "role-play" out of our games, is one thing I think every player I've ever met would agree on.   I can sort of get that some wierdo or crazy might go to a convention to get their twisted kicks, but is it really true that at one time this would have been brushed over as not weird?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 3, 2019)

While there are those who like to push buttons.... 

The putz at that table is well past "unacceptable"... 

You don't spring loss of character control on players.
You don't use sexual content in game without prior approval of the players.
You don't use sexual violence in game without prior approval of the players.
You don't use sexual content in public or near children.
You especially don't use sexual violence content in view of children.

THat the game is about kids is even more squeamish a situation, too. I wonder if he has (or lives with someone else's) kids; if he does, it's a bit more worrisome still. 

It's also sad, but inevitable, that some serious jerks will agree with his choices. The internet is filled with troll havens.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> is it really true that at one time this would have been brushed over as not weird?




I don't think there's been a year, between 1974 and 2019, in which no TRPGers anywhere would have any objections or concerns about a con game going down that path.

I also don't think there's been a year, between 1974 and 2019, in which no one anywhere was eager to project their sexual fantasies into TRPG.

Example one: that Dead Alewives skit, with a line to the effect of "if there are any chicks in the tavern, I want to do them"
Example two: that time I visited by Friendly Local Game Store to join one of their open D&D tables, and one of the regular players established *before the session started* that his character was "rapey" (his word, not mine) (this was in the last year or so).
Example three: in 1980, Jean Wells wrote the module "Palace of the Silver Princess", which includes a scene in which the DM narrates, to the players, that they see a gang of men, a captive young woman, and sexualized violence. The module included an illustration of this scene. Someone *in the post-production process* realized that shipping this module to hobby stores would be a bad idea. TSR buried thousands of "orange cover" copies in a landfill, then hired Tom Moldvay to rewrite the module; they then published the "green cover" version listing both Moldvay and Wells as authors.

As you say, "it keeps happening apparently again and again". It's as if there was some sort of ongoing struggle between the best and worst aspects of humanity.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 3, 2019)

And for this reason session 0's were invented. Discuss which themes and topics may come up in your campaign before you start subjecting your players to it. If for example you run a horror campaign, then body horror may be part of the game, and thats fine... but where are the limits? It is incredibly important to get all your players on the same page. It doesn't sound like this DM really cared for any of that. It's sad that for some players this was their first D&D experience.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 3, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> And for this reason session 0's were invented. Discuss which themes and topics may come up in your campaign before you start subjecting your players to it. If for example you run a horror campaign, then body horror may be part of the game, and thats fine... but where are the limits? It is incredibly important to get all your players on the same page. It doesn't sound like this DM really cared for any of that. It's sad that for some players this was their first D&D experience.




A con game is typically a one shot very often played with people who have never met before so a session zero isn't really practical.  But it would be trivial to include content warnings on the sign in sheet so people had an idea of what they were getting into.  But even then that particular scenario was not  appropriate for the venue even if the players knew what they were getting into.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 3, 2019)

When you have rando walk-ins you don't do rapey themes period.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 3, 2019)

ccs said:


> Should not run that stuff without the right group




There's a "right" kind of group?

That's almost...more disturbing.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 3, 2019)

I fear that’s a part of it. Like, I couldn’t imagine having the chutzpah to show up to a con game table that was 50% women and play a pole dancer-bard, complete with a miniature to match (true story, this).

Anyway, appalling is the right word for the original incident. I’m glad to hear that it was handled quickly and decisively.

I like to think that I do a good job at being respectful of my players boundaries, but I’ve been considering implementing the X-card system at my open table, just to be sure.



Immortal Sun said:


> Yeah, it was quite disturbing how willing these people were to be public with their "fixations" like they got some kind of extra kick about doing it in public.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 3, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I like to think that I do a good job at being respectful of my players boundaries, but I’ve been considering implementing the X-card system at my open table, just to be sure.




While this was probably prompted as a parody of the "X-Card" I think it is actually worth looking at as it tackles the same problem from a different direction. I also think it would have worked better in this instance.

The "M-Card"

*https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/*

While either of those might have helped in the situation that lead to the news article, with the M-Card the player would have been suitably forewarned assuming the GM was sensible enough to put "sexual violence" on the card. So wouldn't have sat at the table in the first place. The M-Card also works better in a con environment as it lets people not involved in the game know the content isn't suitable to all, so they can stay clear, rather than an X-Card that tells you nothing of the content of the game, and is no help to people not playing.

The problem with the X-Card in this instance, is by the time comes when you need to use it the damage is already done.

However I think neither would have worked in this instance, because the GM in question wouldn't have used any "safety tools" because the shock factor was what they were looking for. So they weren't likely to forewarn the players in either case.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 3, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> .
> 
> The "M-Card"
> 
> *https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/*



This would help insofar that at any con rated PG (which would be all of them unless you know otherwise) the use of the M card would be prohibited.

Just a reminder that the core issue is having M-rated content at all, unless you're certain everybody in the audience has buy-in to a more restricted rating.

Otherwise put, a card ain't gonna save you.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> While this was probably prompted as a parody of the "X-Card" I think it is actually worth looking at as it tackles the same problem from a different direction. I also think it would have worked better in this instance.
> 
> The "M-Card"




I don't think this actually addresses the same problem as the X-card, at all.  I think it is a good idea for a GM to put up front if they intend their game to include material that some would find inappropriate*.  But that's not nearly the same thing as giving a player a way to quickly communicate, without having to enter into discussions, that they have a problem.

Case in point - the last time an X-card got invoked in my presence was not because of the "mature" content of the game, but because the loud vocal tones used at the table triggered (in the diagnosed PTSD sense, not the "I found it inappropriate/offensive" sense) a player who had suffered abuse as a child.  The scene was not about abusing a child - PTSD triggering is often about sensory input, not content.

This player did *NOT* want to go into their history of abuse with random strangers at a convention table.  The X-card saved the session for them.

The M-card would have done nothing for them.



*I also think the level of "mature" we are talking about in the OP is just not appropriate for open table games at general fandom conventions, period.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 3, 2019)

Reading threads like this just make me thankful that despite some real play style and focus issues with members of my long term group, I don't have any need to RPG with randoms at stores.  At least all our degeneracy matches up. 

Who the hell would think an on screen rapey con game was good?  Dang. 

At least when historical wargaming with randoms you don't have stuff like this come up.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2019)

Hmmm...  

This whole X-Card/M-Card Thing is new to me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 3, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> This would help insofar that at any con rated PG (which would be all of them unless you know otherwise) the use of the M card would be prohibited.
> 
> Just a reminder that the core issue is having M-rated content at all, unless you're certain everybody in the audience has buy-in to a more restricted rating.
> 
> Otherwise put, a card ain't gonna save you.




The only con I've been to in a long time was GaryCon this year and there were definitely games that were listed as mature 18+ to play and stuff in the event listing about the game having adult content.  Is GC unusual in that regard then?  

Though I do remember seeing a Battletech game as listed as 18+ which I thought was strange unless they just didn't want a bunch of kids at the table.


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 3, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> This whole X-Card/M-Card Thing is new to me.




It's something I always wonder if I should include when I run con games. I always try not to include material that will make others feel uncomfortable or unsafe, but we can never know what will end up doing so. (For instance, I know someone who gets really freaked out about spiders—possibly to the point of it being a phobia—which tend to be a fairly common element in D&D-type games.) So far, I've only included an X-card once, but this incident reminds me that I should be more conscious of these issues.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 3, 2019)

Honestly, I just heard of X-Cards about a week or two ago on the Behold Her podcast. But the idea is something I've been thinking about ever since. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> This whole X-Card/M-Card Thing is new to me.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jun 3, 2019)

How to explain with the right words? (English isn't my native language). 

In the first years of the comic strip "Buck Rogers" the antagonists were the han, the red mongol invaders. That was right then, but today it wouldn't be politically correct. In the 70's there was a Disney comedy "Our dinosaur is missing", where Chinese are the antagonists. Today we can't watch it because it is not politically correct. Walt Disney was smoker, but not their photos are changed, the cigar in his hand has been censured. In a 60's comedy show maybe you could tell a joke about gays, but now it wouldn't be allowed.  The mind of the people can change.  

Your conscience can be clear but if you have said something offending others, you have to face the consequences. 

If you really want to fight the hate and help for a better world, then you have to remember the key is recovering moral values like the respect of the human dignity. Without this the rebel can become a new tyrant, the hero can fall in the dark side of the force. Without respect of the human dignity reporting hate or intolerance will not be enough. 

* An ordinary person with a sane mind should have enough empathy even for fictional characters. (Some people like horror movies, but because that fear helps us to remember we are really lucky because our life is enough boring, without danger or menaces). Trust nobody too much who enjoy with the suffering of other people, even fictional characters. 

* If I want to play "Tale of the Loop" with children PCs, I want an adventure like R.L.Stine's Goosebumps stories, not Garth Ennis' "Crossed" comics.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This whole X-Card/M-Card Thing is new to me.




For those who are not aware, the X-card concept is simple:  You put an index card with a big "X" on it on the table.  If what is going on in the game or the table is problematic for anyone, they reach out and tap that card.  Or alternatively, each person has a card, and they hold it up for all to see when they want to invoke it.

When the card is invoked, the group is supposed to back off from what they are doing - in context, it is often pretty obvious what raised the issue.  If it isn't, there's an opportunity for the GM to take the player aside to clarify.

In general, the person who invokes the X-card isn't supposed to have to justify or explain it to the group as a whole - if something is freaking them out, they should not have to spend the emotional cycles explain the details why to people they don't necessarily know or trust or want to give the details to.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I do have a slight quibble regarding the Orange Cover B3- it's a bit more complicated than that.
> 
> Here are some helpful links-
> https://www.wired.com/story/racy-dandd-module-oral-history/
> ...




Really good articles! thanks for sharing!


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2019)

I've actually found myself in a game not too far-removed from this at a convention. The scenario was vaguely described on the sign-up sheet as a "monster camp" scenario, though it did specify the inclusion of adult themes. This turned out to be a metaphor for religious "straight camps", with the GM using the scenario of players as classic monsters (vampires, werewolves, etc.) who didn't want to be monstrous, and were being sent to a camp run by monsters to "normalise" them into their stereotypical roles, as a way of exploring the ramifications of societal rejection of non-standard sexualities.

And, as bizarre as that sounds, for the first half of the game it was mostly light-hearted and comedic. But by the end of the scenario it got seriously messed up, to the point of including sexual assault against some of the player characters - including my own.

I didn't feel like reporting it at the time, but it was a decidedly unpleasant experience to play through.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm assuming a charitable reading of the comment is that adult situations should only be done with the full knowledge, understanding, and prior consent of the group.
> 
> That said, I also have a hard time understanding the "right" group for the type of scenario that the title is describing. A group without me, certainly.




Here's a scenario: the DM and all the players are survivors, and *with that as common ground*, they voluntarily - with advance knowledge - choose to play a party of survivors who become level 1 adventurers, and form a party, specifically to protect their community from further abuses. It would still be tricky territory; but if everyone involved actually cares about the well-being of everyone else involved, it could be worthwhile.

Just to annoy lowkey13, at least one of the PCs starts as paladin, intent on taking the Oath of Vengeance when they hit level 3.

I participated, for a while, in a group for abuse survivors. Within the intent and commitment to avoid further harm to each other, there was sometimes room for rather grim humor. Sometimes.

I still don't see this group as an event within an all-ages, general-audience gaming conference, assembled on a walk-in basis.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jun 4, 2019)

Apu is a very loved character from the Simpsons cartoon for decades and now he is not politically correct. 

When you try to use speculative fiction like a propaganda weapon, a RPG or a Hollywood super-production people notice it and sometimes this is really annoying. 

Some horrible things is better only to happen off-screen.

After a hard week of work or studying somebody want to have fun and rest, or to recover the past innocence of the childhood, not uncomfortable horror stories.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> This would help insofar that at any con rated PG (which would be all of them unless you know otherwise) the use of the M card would be prohibited.




I've not sure I've ever seen a con rated anything let alone "PG", certainly the content of the con's I've attended, are normally 12A's at best if we were to use cinema ratings for content, and most have 18+ games.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I don't think this actually addresses the same problem as the X-card, at all.




It does address the same problem, "someone at the table finds some part of the game inappropriate/distressing for them".



> I think it is a good idea for a GM to put up front if they intend their game to include material that some would find inappropriate*.




Yes, I think this is something most people agree on. The M Card calls that out explicitly, but it has become more common for convention games anyway. 



> But that's not nearly the same thing as giving a player a way to quickly communicate, without having to enter into discussions, that they have a problem.




No it isn't the same, but is does address the same problem, "someone at the table finds some part of the game inappropriate/distressing for them", first by having a clear warning of content, so someone is less that will become distressed is less likely to sit at the table in the first place. Then by people at the table agreeing to remove themselves with the least disruption to the game, if they don't wish to continue to be involved.



> Case in point - the last time an X-card got invoked in my presence was not because of the "mature" content of the game, but because the loud vocal tones used at the table triggered (in the diagnosed PTSD sense, not the "I found it inappropriate/offensive" sense) a player who had suffered abuse as a child.  The scene was not about abusing a child - PTSD triggering is often about sensory input, not content




So in this case the player in question limited everyone else at the table to not speaking in loud voices, something common in RP situations. With the M card this person could have left the table, and everyone else could continue their over-acting and enjoying themselves.



> This player did *NOT* want to go into their history of abuse with random strangers at a convention table.  The X-card saved the session for them.
> 
> The M-card would have done nothing for them.




Yet you seem to have found out the reason so clearly some discussion about it occurred. The M Card would mean they could leave the table without disclosing anything (just like the X-Card), but allow others to continue the game unhindered, by a restriction 1 in 7 (I am assuming a pretty standard convention game) of the players wants to put on the whole table.



> *I also think the level of "mature" we are talking about in the OP is just not appropriate for open table games at general fandom conventions, period.




True and as I stated earlier, no manner of "safety tools" are going to help when you have a GM that is intent on ambushing the players for shock value.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 4, 2019)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Apu is a very loved character from the Simpsons cartoon for decades and now he is not politically correct.




Some people at UK Expo had unpleasant experience. Do you see this as an opportunity for promoting your agenda about what is and isn't politically correct?

If you want to watch "Song of the South" in the privacy of your home, then go for it, have fun. If you wanna play F.A.T.A.L. and/or Custer's Revenge with your friends, then go for it, have fun. But please don't use this particular thread to tell us all about your bold decisions to enjoy things which other might find offensive.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

MarkB said:


> I've actually found myself in a game not too far-removed from this at a convention. The scenario was vaguely described on the sign-up sheet as a "monster camp" scenario, though it did specify the inclusion of adult themes. This turned out to be a metaphor for religious "straight camps", with the GM using the scenario of players as classic monsters (vampires, werewolves, etc.) who didn't want to be monstrous, and were being sent to a camp run by monsters to "normalise" them into their stereotypical roles, as a way of exploring the ramifications of societal rejection of non-standard sexualities.




Just a guess but this sounds like Monsterhearts to me, or at least that would be a great system to try out that game concept.



> And, as bizarre as that sounds, for the first half of the game it was mostly light-hearted and comedic. But by the end of the scenario it got seriously messed up, to the point of including sexual assault against some of the player characters - including my own.
> 
> I didn't feel like reporting it at the time, but it was a decidedly unpleasant experience to play through.




Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"? 

If you are dealing with unpleasant issues like "straight camps", wouldn't you expect there be decidedly unpleasant issues occurring?

See this is where I have an issue with the X-Card, use of an X-Card in a game like this by one player that doesn't like an unpleasant situation, kills the whole concept of the scenario for everyone else that might actually be interested in exploring these unpleasant issues in the safety of fictional roleplay game. An the M-Card however allows play to continue for those that are interested in exploring difficult and somewhat distressing topics.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?




Because the default assumption when joining a game is that you’re doing it to have fun. Sure, if you’re running a game and state you’re planning to run an unpleasant game, that’s fine. Good luck getting players. But at a Con? Without explicitly warning people first? No. That’s just abusing your position as a GM to force your edgelordness onto unsuspecting victims. Strikes me as the kind of thing someone does because no one who knows him will actually play with him anymore.


----------



## Tapdance (Jun 4, 2019)

Class example of someone not considdering the where they are running a game, and for whom.  The venue reacted as they should and needed to, in response to the incident.

In general, I can't say that I'm opposed to using controversial things in an RPG game, but as the GM you really have to know your audience (and venue), if you want to pull off something as controversial as a gang-rape of a character (group).  IMO you can get away with it, if you do it right, but you need a really mature group of players with a serious "firewall" between themselves and their characters, and you can't have anyone involved who's been subjected to something similar in real life.  Personally I'd find it to be an interesting challenge to try and work out how a character I played, might react to becoming gang-raped, but I do in no way expect that very many other people might view such an in-game character experience in the same way.  Such material is NOT for everyone, and it sure as hell isn't suitable content for a public venue like a Con!


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Because the default assumption when joining a game is that you’re doing it to have fun. Sure, if you’re running a game and state you’re planning to run an unpleasant game, that’s fine. Good luck getting players.




You'd be surprised, Monsterhearts tackles pretty adult themes and sexuality. The Vampire Skin for example can force another PC or NPC to do exactly what they want regardless of the what the target wants, the Skin is about exploring the concept of consent. Every character can use "Turn Someone On" to make the target attracted to them. You can put an "adult themes, sex, violence, drug taking, bullying and abusive language" warning on and still get players.



> But at a Con? Without explicitly warning people first? No. That’s just abusing your position as a GM to force your edgelordness onto unsuspecting victims. Strikes me as the kind of thing someone does because no one who knows him will actually play with him anymore.




I think we can agree the guy in the news article is a dick however, just saying "18+ Horror", isn't really enough of a warning, especially in a game like Things from the Flood.

Edit: Okay seems what has been described in the press isn't the whole truth. The other side makes it look like a gang-rape of minors never happened.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?




If you go to a restaurant, and you order food, and come down with food poisoning, the experience is "decidedly unpleasant".  So, the folks in the kitchen have to wash their hands.  And, they give warnings for when you order your meat rare, or your eggs with runny yolks.  You may ignore them, but that's your lookout.  You have certain expectations.

"Mature" or "18+" does not equate to "decidedly unpleasant".  If you want a game experience to be unpleasant, you *REALLY* need to be clear about that to the other participants.  



> See this is where I have an issue with the X-Card, use of an X-Card in a game like this by one player that doesn't like an unpleasant situation, kills the whole concept of the scenario for everyone else that might actually be interested in exploring these unpleasant issues in the safety of fictional roleplay game. An the M-Card however allows play to continue for those that are interested in exploring difficult and somewhat distressing topics.




The single word "mature" is far, far to broad to allow people to make informed decisions.  People don't know if it means like a videogame M for mature, or a movie R, or a movie NC-17, or up into what we'd call the X-range.  Moreover, once you are talking about mature content, exactly what the content is matters.  Some folks are fine with graphic violence, and some sexual situations, but not sexual situations involving lack of consent, for example.  Other people can do sexual content, but if you touch on torture, they're out, and so on.

It is fine for a group to decide they want to have a particular kind of game, but informed consent on the type of game matters, and showing people a big "M" is not informing them sufficiently.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

So no gang rape of teens occurred, players all stayed for the whole session and discussion at the end.

[video=youtube;o-gLlNa-xDo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-gLlNa-xDo[/video]


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

Here's the entire interview in transcript so no clicks for Desbrough for those that care.

*Could you summarise, in your own words, exactly what happened?*
When I came up with the adventure I had two scenes in mind.
One, the lads, drunk or high outside a kebab shop at 1 am trying to get enough money together to buy a kebab and two, the lads naked, handcuffed, covered in poo being chased by men with guns, which seemed funny.
I was thinking gross out humour, Porkys, American Pie and Inbetweeners – with a bit of Trainspotting and a dash of the Carry On films, but ending with a light touch of Hostel.
To get from the kebab shop to covered in poo, I came up with the lads on tour, Club 18-30 idea.
But as with all plans, not all of it survived first contact with the players. I forgot bits, the covered in poo part for one, and missed some of the comedic beats.
The second gross out teenage comedy/horror I ran later for the UKExpo’s team leaders hit all its comedy beats and was very funny. The game was halted at 11:30 so the giant robots attacking the rave scene fell flat.
This was a mash-up of the Inbetweeners Movie and Hostel. Not the greatest scenario.
A bunch of rich guys wanted to hunt some Englishmen for sport.
Act 1 was the PCs trying to get the money for a Club 18/30 holiday
Act 2 was the arrival in Ibiza.
Act 3 I removed the player agency for 2 mins for a narrative segment, then continued.
The Narration:
“The tour rep gives you some shots, everything goes fuzzy.”
In my notes it states, the drug used not only knocks them out, it gives them terrible diarrhoea. Hence no clothes and sore bums.
“You wake up naked, handcuffed to each other, with sore bums, in the back of a van. Guys with guns make you get out and say run.”
The image of the Inbetweeners lads running naked over wasteland handcuffed together seemed a funny image, which is why I constructed the narrative just to get that scene. However in the post-game chat with all the players I completely forgot to talk through the bits they missed as we were all talking about the structure of shock in horror games.
I believe this omission on my part has caused the problem. The players saw something that wasn’t there and I failed to rectify this as we started discussing something else. Had one of the players raised the issue I would have remembered.
However I accept that it was my fault that I forgot.
After they ran. they had the option of a farm or the woods. They went with the farm. Had they gone with the woods they would have met the robots hiding there.
I bumped into one of the players from the group of 4 friends who played, he said he was annoyed that there were no robots, had they gone into the woods…

*Did you advertise the game as a horror scenario or with an age restriction?*
It was advertised as an 18+ scenario, using a darkly mature game, but the burb clearly showed it to be a gross-out teenage scenario. Something like grubby teenage lads doing grubby teenage lad things.

*Did the players remain for the entire session?*
Yes, we began with a chat about the systems and the dark themes within them.

*When were you aware that there was a problem?*
Nothing till 11ish, when I got a call about something on Twitter. In fact one of the group of four said he was looking forward to the game of Kult the following day.

*Did the convention staff listen to your side of things at all?*
I’d been up since 4 and had just run 12 hours of games. I was in a bit of shock so not 100% as to what was going on, only that there had been no complaint and that they were going off something that was on Twitter. I think I tried to roughly explain the scenario, but I’m not really sure what I said.

*Do you intend to appeal the convention’s decision?*
Yes. I’m sending them a statement with a request to remove the inaccurate press statement they put out, due to the defamatory nature of their statement.

*Were any of the players under age? What about the characters?*
The age rating was 18+. The players were 18+, as were the PCs.

*Did the ‘gang rape of minors’ actually take place in the game and was it described as such or in lurid detail?*
Not at all, both my GM notes and the recording I made of the game clearly show that nothing of the sort happened.

*It’s my understanding that while Tales from the Loop is a more ‘kids on bikes’ game, Things from the Flood is more of a horror game with more adult content. Is that right?*
No, both are darkly mature games. Anyone who has read the books, knows this. Just a read through of the scenarios in Tales from the Loop shows it’s an 18+ game.

*Were you aware of any convention rules prohibiting the kind of content in your game before this blew up?*
I have been running roughly 8 games a year for UKexpo for nearly a decade, minus the year I had Open Heart Surgery, so had an understanding of the rules but given there was no ‘gang rape of minors’ it was not an issue.

*You don’t seem quite as social-media connected as a lot of people, what has it been like for you being ‘cancelled’ in this way?*
I only have a locked down Facebook that I use to keep in contact with family.
Its quite mad to think that the game of internet whispers is revolving around you. I’m reading bits thinking, ‘that never happened’. Makes you think about the fake/real news in the age of misinformation we have woken up to. Bloody insane. The pseudo death threats, and threats of violence, from clicking keys in somebody’s mum’s basement would be funny – if it wasn’t happening to you.

*Some people talk as though you have a reputation for pushing boundaries and being ‘edgy’, is that fair to you?*
No, I run games that have twists, or that turn genres on their heads. I’ve run every genre from Dad’s Army vs the Deep Ones to Delta Green, to Musketeers in the Hollow Earth.

*Have you been able to counter these accusations anywhere or have you been prevented from doing so?*
I have not really spoken to anyone. I’ve not begun to online, just yet.

*Your delayed Kickstarter has been brought up and used to attack you, but I saw an update from May 15th. Do you still intend to deliver and do you have a revised timetable?*
This is really a conversation between me and the backers, but my Open Heart Surgery delayed things. A full draft was dropped a while ago.

This opens up the debate, what is or is not acceptable? MYFAROG? Let’s Kill the Ice Cream Man? Lover in the Ice and any of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess adventures? Even the Alien RPG, a game based on a film where a monster puts its genitalia down your throat to empty its seed inside you… I guess gross out teenage comedy needs to be added to that list.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 4, 2019)

So you are saying this may not be the clear cut case that the BBC presented it as? shocking!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2019)

So, if I take this guy precisely at his word, I see the problem.

His word is he said the PCs are drugged, and wake up, "naked, handcuffed to each other, with sore bums, in the back of a van."  That's his quote.

And he (wrongly) figures, "the drug gave them diarrhea, so they were stripped naked," is somehow more obvious than, "you were drugged, handcuffed, and raped in the back of a van."  

If it happened as he described, I'm sorry, but I don't think this person had any place running mature content.  He couldn't see how that would read?  Really?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 4, 2019)

It's worth noting that the player who originally raised complaints about this game absolutely disputes this account of the events. I understand the need to defend oneself after the fact but I find this harder to believe than UK Expo not doing their due diligence.

Edit: The interview's source also has a history of making light of sexualized violence so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's actively trying to downplay this. Gross.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's worth noting that the player who originally raised complaints about this game absolutely disputes this account of the events. I understand the need to defend oneself after the fact but I find this harder to believe than UK Expo not doing their due diligence.
> 
> Edit: The interview's source also has a history of making light of sexualized violence so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's actively trying to downplay this. Gross.




Yeah, if you’ve been accused of using rape inappropriately in an RPG, you probably shouldn’t agree to an interview from the guy who authored ‘In defense of rape.’


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 4, 2019)

Ewww. 

Not sure I buy that account, either, but saying "no, they were just covered in poo; it was supposed to be funny" isn't a great defense. That's not mature content, that's immature content!

And that's the problem with "mature content" warnings. It still could be anything. I mean, I could run an adventure that's one big dry examination of existentialist philosophy and call that mature content.

Camus: The Plaguening


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> That's not mature content, that's immature content!




Guess you've not seen *The Inbetweeners* then?


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 4, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> And that's the problem with "mature content" warnings. It still could be anything. I mean, I could run an adventure that's one big dry examination of existentialist philosophy and call that mature content.
> 
> Camus: The Plaguening




A bit of a tangent, but I couldn't help but be reminded of this:




https://www.facebook.com/TommySiegel/photos/a.814196891929314/2889711161044533/


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Guess you've not seen *The Inbetweeners* then?




I personally wouldn't call _The Inbetweeners_ mature.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's worth noting that the player who originally raised complaints about this game absolutely disputes this account of the events. I understand the need to defend oneself after the fact but I find this harder to believe than UK Expo not doing their due diligence.




Yeah.  That's why I put the "if", and taking him precisely at his word.  I mean, even if the best literal interpretation of his story is still a problem... there was a problem.  That game should not have happened.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 4, 2019)

Yeah the whole 'Woah there, I didn't mean they were RAPED. They just were naked tied up with sore bums and that obviously meant they had explosive diahrrea, why would anyone think anything else happened?' defense is kinda BS

Sounds very much like someone realizing they are in deep doodoo and trying to walk back what they did, grasping at any straw they can.

I'm all for hearing both sides of the story. But yes, even if you believe his account of events its very hard to believe his account of _intent_. And when the best case you can make for yourself is gross incompetence, its probably not a good thing. 

There is a tendency for a certain group of people to try and downplay and hush up or minimalize any account of sexual assualt or wrong doing. From 'oh we just shouldnt talk about this anymore, it was handled' to 'Oh no he didnt mean THAT, he meant this totally other innocent thing!' This kind of mindset is terribly disappointing and to me it really showcases why we DO have to really discuss these incidents still.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2019)

Why does the image of Kevin Rolfe look familiar?  Is it just coincidence, or has he been in other controversies?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 4, 2019)

He looks like a large chunk of gamers I've come across.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 4, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why does the image of Kevin Rolfe look familiar?  Is it just coincidence, or has he been in other controversies?




I believe he has a Kickstarter for a game that’s 4 years late.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I believe he has a Kickstarter for a game that’s 4 years late.




I don’t do Kickstarters as a rule, but it’s possible someone griped about it here, so he could have popped up on my radar that way.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jun 4, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> I still don't see this group as an event within an all-ages, general-audience gaming conference, assembled on a walk-in basis.




Yeah, this. I once ran, with unanimous consent, a sword & sorcery game in which sexual violence was explicitly on the table-- for my brother, my ex-girlfriend, and a married couple. It was one of the very best games I've ever run, and one of the very best scenes in that game would have (rightly) gotten at least three of us banned from any socially responsible Con for life.

I also had to stop playing with a former acquaintance of mine, because he'd somehow divined a number of unpleasant facts about my childhood and was deliberately using them to make me uncomfortable in every game we played.

Games with Mature content require greater player buy-in and consent than less controversial fare. And some topics are just more Mature than Mature, and require an _even higher_ degree of due diligence to make sure "yes" really means "yes".



HJFudge said:


> There is a tendency for a certain group of people to try and downplay and hush up or minimalize any account of sexual assualt or wrong doing. From 'oh we just shouldnt talk about this anymore, it was handled' to 'Oh no he didnt mean THAT, he meant this totally other innocent thing!' This kind of mindset is terribly disappointing and to me it really showcases why we DO have to really discuss these incidents still.




At the very least, we need to keep discussing this specific incident until either _absolutely everyone_ knows not to let this guy run public games, or until there is a _genuine apology_ that indicates he understands he did something very wrong, why it was very wrong to do, and _why he did it_.

But also yes... we need to keep discussing these things until everyone who has not personally experienced them acknowledges the fact that many, if not most, gamers have.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 4, 2019)

I have not. I can't say the whole Lad Culture genre does much for me.



Bagpuss said:


> Guess you've not seen *The Inbetweeners* then?


----------



## MarkB (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?
> 
> If you are dealing with unpleasant issues like "straight camps", wouldn't you expect there be decidedly unpleasant issues occurring?



That part wasn't on the sign-up sheet. From the description on the sheet, it could just as easily have been "summer camp for monsters", and as mentioned by other posters, a "mature content" warning covers a lot of ground - it could as easily have meant explicit language, graphic violence, consensual sexual content, or any of a number of things.

It was only once we got to the table that we were given more of an idea of the general scenario, and even that description didn't really hint at what it devolved into later in the game.



> See this is where I have an issue with the X-Card, use of an X-Card in a game like this by one player that doesn't like an unpleasant situation, kills the whole concept of the scenario for everyone else that might actually be interested in exploring these unpleasant issues in the safety of fictional roleplay game.




Are five peoples' interest really worth one person's emotional turmoil? Is sticking a big M on your table really any excuse for putting absolutely any conceivable topic, no matter how distateful, on the table?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 4, 2019)

Okay, so I _really_ don't buy that YouTube alternate account of events. It's the channel of James Desborough, whom a brief Google search shows to be exactly the sort of person you'd expect to come to the defense of this GM.



Ralif Redhammer said:


> Not sure I buy that account, either,


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?




There is a certain irony in this statement in that it appears that the GM had a decidedly unpleasant game experience in being ejected from the con. You reap what you sow.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> *It’s my understanding that while Tales from the Loop is a more ‘kids on bikes’ game, Things from the Flood is more of a horror game with more adult content. Is that right?*
> No, both are darkly mature games. Anyone who has read the books, knows this. Just a read through of the scenarios in Tales from the Loop shows it’s an 18+ game.




This dude must have read a different Tales from the Loop than I have (I have not read Things from the Flood, which I understand has older PCs and more "mature" themes). While there are bad things happening near the Loop, I wouldn't call it "darkly mature". The game suggests the Kids should have problems like "The tough guys always hit me" or "I cannot read very well and they want to put me in a special class" or "My mother drinks a lot" - things that can be alienating and bond them together with the other Kids, but I wouldn't call that sort of thing "Darkly mature".

And the scenarios I've played so far in Tales of the Look (two at cons and two at home) have been:

[sblock]* Toy manufacturers are launching a new line of Swedish-made knock-off Transformers toys. Turns out they aren't just toys but actual mini-robots that are turning hostile and the kids have to figure out why and how to stop them.
* NPC kids go missing, and the PCs learn that they were planning on having a party near the abandoned "haunted" cabin outside town. Kids go there, investigate, may start hallucinating some things, explore some more and find a tunnel leading to a government lab where something went very wrong leading to leaks of a fear gas.
* Some people report seeing "monsters" around town. Kids investigate and learn that it's because one of the weirder adults is hijacking one of the Loop supercomputers to make perfect pirated VHS tapes at home, and that supercomputer is also connected to a machine that builds robots, and then starts building robots that look like the things on her horror movie tapes.
* The library seems to be haunted. Turns out it's the result of a scientist experimenting with a teleporting machine which made him, as well as the Russians spying on him, go out of phase and be almost entirely unable to affect the actual world.[/sblock]

These may all have some disturbing elements, but nothing I'd call "darkly mature".


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 4, 2019)

I've ran multiple adult campaigns in my life, some of which included sexual (consensual) content. But I would never dare to run any such campaign at a con with random people, and I would always inform my players what they are about to play, and discuss how I intend to deal with the more edgy material. Usually it involves a 'fade to black', because playing out what exactly happens is just gross and kinda creepy. But I'm not above including scenes of torture and brutal violence, as long as my players are on board with that. And if any of my players include women, I will always adjust the scenario accordingly. Because some things that are okay between a group of just guys, are kind of awkward when women are present. Likewise, I always take into account things my players may be sensitive to, such as religious themes, if any of my players happen to be religious. These are the sort of things I tend to discuss openly with my players, before starting play.

That said, I've never met any DM or player who thinks rapey scenarios are okay, or fun for the players in ANY campaign. But I think it says a lot about a person who thinks that they are.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Are five peoples' interest really worth one person's emotional turmoil? Is sticking a big M on your table really any excuse for putting absolutely any conceivable topic, no matter how distateful, on the table?




The point is the person is free to leave it's not forcing them to stay and suffer emotional turmoil. With X-Card the person is still going to experience enough to be triggered or else they won't feel the need to touch the X-Card. The X-Card isn't going to prevent emotional turmoil, if anything the M-Card is more likely to as a person if forewarned.


----------



## MrDM69 (Jun 4, 2019)

My friend was DM-ing once and our characters did go through rape, but that entire adventure was just a joke, and he was just saying the weirdest things he could think of. He also just said "and they raped you" and left it at that, and I was thankful he didn't go into description. Once again that adventure was just a joke, and me and the other player were totally okay with it (we were all guys).


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Okay, so I _really_ don't buy that YouTube alternate account of events. It's the channel of James Desborough, whom a brief Google search shows to be exactly the sort of person you'd expect to come to the defense of this GM.




Yes, he wrote "In Defense Of Rape", so that his coming to their defense is but damning with faint praise.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> The point is the person is free to leave it's not forcing them to stay and suffer emotional turmoil. With X-Card the person is still going to experience enough to be triggered or else they won't feel the need to touch the X-Card. The X-Card isn't going to prevent emotional turmoil, if anything the M-Card is more likely to as a person if forewarned.




I dislike the concept of the M-Card as it feels like a challenge rather than a safety feature. It's saying "are you edgy and adult enough to play at _my_ table?"

And then if a player who wasn't expecting to have difficulties with the content finds that something unexpectedly comes up that does bother him, it's like a commitment. "I promised I'd be mature and edgy enough to be in this game - I can't back out now, they won't respect me!"


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

MarkB said:


> I dislike the concept of the M-Card as it feels like a challenge rather than a safety feature. It's saying "are you edgy and adult enough to play at _my_ table?"




So you consider content warnings are a challenge?



> And then if a player who wasn't expecting to have difficulties with the content finds that something unexpectedly comes up that does bother him, it's like a commitment. "I promised I'd be mature and edgy enough to be in this game - I can't back out now, they won't respect me!"




Nope, it's very clear there is no commitment to remain in a situation you are uncomfortable with, in fact there is a very clear indication that you should remove yourself from such situations.

How you can read *"You are accepting that if you have an issue with anything in the game it’s on you to excuse yourself from the scene or game with minimal disruption to everyone else at the table."* as a commitment to remain at the table?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 4, 2019)

dragoner said:


> Yes, he wrote "In Defense Of Rape", so that his coming to their defense is but damning with faint praise.




Have you actually read that article? I'm just curious as to what part you disagree with?


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> So you consider content warnings are a challenge?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This phenomenon exists outside of gaming.

I've seen it a lot...and not just in the context of mature content. For example, many RPGers will say 'Oh this system is complex...you probably wouldnt understand though cause you just aren't as intelligent as I am' and if this thought becomes kinda mainstream it becomes kind of a challenge to tackle the system. The system could be overly fiddly and bad, but a person will stick with it because they are determined not to seem 'dumb'. They WILL like it and they WILL master it because they view themselves as smart.

Because, and again, this happens _all the time_, people will judge them for 'just not GETTING it or being smart enough to get it' if they drop it and say "Just too complex for my tastes."

So when someone sees a 'Mature' tag at the table, they go into it because of COURSE they are Mature. They arent a child. They are capable of dealing with mature content. But then...well, something comes up that triggers a memory or an experience and they become deeply uncomfortable. But there is a *social stigma and a shame* associated with leaving, now. Should there be? No. But there is. The other players will look on someone who walks out on something as 'less' (not all other players, but some will) because they can't handle something 'small' like fade to black/off screen sexual harrassment. Or something 'tame' like violence (non sexual) against women or children.

So they stay. They don't leave. Because they care about what others think. Should they? Maybe not. But they do.

That, I think, is the complaint some have with simply putting something as Mature.


----------



## dco (Jun 4, 2019)

Those players should not play rpgs with people they don't know.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 4, 2019)

dco said:


> Those players should not play rpgs with people they don't know.




Pretty bold statement. I feel perhaps someone should be reasonably able to go and play some RPGs with some strangers without being made to feel like trash. Maybe thats just me?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Have you actually read that article? I'm just curious as to what part you disagree with?




More or less all of it. The overall tone and dismissiveness are probably the most odious aspects of it, but even where it's closest to being right (that sexualized violence can be utilized for a truly affecting plot and character element if used carefully and respectfully) he misses the point that it almost always _isn't_ used in those ways, and particularly not in the examples he provides (both in the essay itself and in his larger body of work). He never addresses the key problem that it is often _at best_ used as cheap, tasteless shorthand for character trauma or motivation and at worst as sheer exploitation.

He instead wastes most of his energy railing against a strawman argument that betrays his own lack of actual understanding of what "normalizing rape culture" even means within this context (the best worst part is when he argues that people railing against rape means that rape isn't normalized... in argument essentially telling them they should shut up).

0/10 would not recommend or read again.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> Those players should not play rpgs with people they don't know.




If we start setting a minimum bar of social maturity for new tabletop RPG players, the hobby won't last long.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 5, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> At the very least, we need to keep discussing this specific incident until either _absolutely everyone_ knows not to let this guy run public games, or until there is a _genuine apology_ that indicates he understands he did something very wrong, why it was very wrong to do, and _why he did it_.
> 
> But also yes... we need to keep discussing these things until everyone who has not personally experienced them acknowledges the fact that many, if not most, gamers have.




As long as anyone gives serious consideration to essays "In Defense Of Rape", as long as the voters of Missouri elect Congressional representatives who argue in terms of "legitimate rape" and "consensual rapes", as long as a college student's excellence as a competitive swimmer is a factor in whether he gets a heavy or light sentence for sexual assault... in short, as long as there is disagreement on whether rape is really all that bad... then disagreement will appear across society, including in TRPG.

Maybe someday the GM from UK Expo (Kevin Rolfe) will understand that he did something very wrong. Having read his interview after the incident, I'm not holding my breath. I'd bet that twenty years and thirty years from now, he'll still consider himself unfairly misunderstood; and that those who rally to his defense, in this thread, will continue to rally to the defense of his behavioral successors, after the next such incident, and the one after that.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 5, 2019)

MarkB said:


> If we start setting a minimum bar of social maturity for new tabletop RPG players, the hobby won't last long.




Especially when we have people who still consider "implications of gang rape" (or, being more charitable that has been earned at this moment, "drugging, stripping, beating, and ending up covered in their own crap") to be "mature".


----------



## dco (Jun 5, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> Pretty bold statement. I feel perhaps someone should be reasonably able to go and play some RPGs with some strangers without being made to feel like trash. Maybe thats just me?



Personally I'm not finding anything reasonable in all this matter, not sure why a supposed (contradictory reports) rape in a roleplaying game for ages of 18+ escalates to news because someone was distressed and why people instead of talking to the GM prefers twitter. Perhaps I'm very rare, in any case I don't think this will help the hobby and would have preferred if those people only played their safe games in their sanitized environment.

Another thing is that different people can find for example the same thing fun or boring, RPGs as tailored experiences for each player take a lot of work and you can't expect that when playing with random people. If you can end feeling like trash because of something while roleplaying you should know that it is your personal problem, learn about the experience and how to avoid it.



MarkB said:


> If we start setting a minimum bar of social maturity for new tabletop RPG players, the hobby won't last long.



The hobby will last less with all the immature and useless drama.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 5, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Have you actually read that article? I'm just curious as to what part you disagree with?




The trivialization of rape. Nevertheless it's poorly written tripe, merely filler for the shock value of the title. Now that I said that his "girl friend" will come here posting on his account about how upset he is, and how he might do something stupid.


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> ...and would have preferred if those people only played their safe games in their sanitized environment.




Call me crazy, but it seems to me that a con game in which a GM is running for a group of people s/he has never met before is the _perfect_ place for "safe games" in a "sanitized environment."


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 5, 2019)

HAHAHAHAA wow people are actually defending this?  God damn the internet is so predictable.  JFC


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> Those players should not play rpgs with people they don't know.




If you run a gaming convention, or run a game store which hosts games, then you can ban those players.

Otherwise, it's not your decision to make (or in the UK, your decision to take).

I attended a convention recently. I imagine that much (most?) of its income came from registration fees, and I imagine that most of the players who paid registration fees expected games which cleared the low, low bar of avoiding "you wake up handcuffed together in the back of a van" (let alone naked and sore). If that sort of scene were common, in games at the convention, then I suspect repeat business would decline. I, for one, would not pay to come back for more of that.

I have visited games at my Friendly Local Game Store. One of them featured a PC who was, in the words of the player, "rapey". Whether I go back to that store is my decision. I'm not going back to that particular DM, and thus not to the store's Monday evening table. The store gets weekly fees from the players who sit at that table; on the other hand, it would also get a weekly fee from me, if the GM set stricter boundaries on that particular player - so whether it's making good money on that table, or whether it's missing opportunities to make MORE money, is theirs to evaluate. I imagine most women would also find that table too uncomfortable for repeat business, and in Northern California, losing the business of female gamers means losing a substantial percentage of one's customer base. We each make our choices.

If you're about to dismiss me as thin-skinned: I've played in home games which entered thematically touchy territory. In one of those games, a Bad Guy captured the PCs. Between sessions, the GM asked us to each write a description of the most traumatic event our PCs had ever experienced. In the next session, our PCs were strapped to tables and forced to re-experience those traumas, sort of like the torture scene in "Princess Bride" but more personalized. One of the PCs re-experienced seeing his brother die (from his background story). I considered asking the GM to stop the scene, as it was hard for me, in the wake of my brother's death the previous year. I decided to roll with it; when I told the DM, afterwards, he apologized, and he told me that he had a plot planned in which the PC's brother shows up as a revenant. He offered to drop that plot line. I thought about it, and replied that I could handle it, because knowing it was coming, and I could prepare myself mentally. As it turns out, we defeated the revenant; then my paladin PC spoke at the funeral and consecrated the burial ground. In the end, that was a positive way for me to bring my real world grief into my PC's expression of personality. But it was very much a good thing, that the GM was *willing* to ditch the revenant storyline, out of respect for one player's experience.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> The hobby will last less with all the immature and useless drama.




Whenever there's a thread which involves sexism, misogyny, or related topics, someone posts about how the hobby (and the related industry) are DOOMED if they follow the agenda of "could we please have less sexism, harassment, rape, and misogyny in TRPG".

TRPG has been an established hobby for over fifty years. How long have Chicken Littles been declaring the imminent end of TRPG, unless TRPG goes exactly the way THEY want it to go?

Green Ronin is still in business.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 5, 2019)

This doesn't seem like a great adventure for LARPing


----------



## dco (Jun 5, 2019)

mrm1138 said:


> Call me crazy, but it seems to me that a con game in which a GM is running for a group of people s/he has never met before is the _perfect_ place for "safe games" in a "sanitized environment."



Have you seen the news? Obviously you are wrong.
And sanitized for what? Perhaps someone is distressed by violence, torture, etc.



Riley37 said:


> If you run a gaming convention, or run a game store which hosts games, then you can ban those players.
> 
> Otherwise, it's not your decision to make (or in the UK, your decision to take).
> 
> ...



I didn't say anything about banning the players, they should know themselves, if the fiction can distress them they should not play with strangers and games they don't know with 18+ ratings. And they always have the option to leave the game if the yare so distressed.
I also didn't say anything about the convention, if it has its own known rules and people pay for usually awful adventures good for them. The GMs are paid?  In my young times roleplaying groups organized conventions that were free.

I'm not interested on you, I'm surprised by the news, I've seen far worse things than rape, like being tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, eaten alive...every player I've ever met had a character that suffered something awful in game and a lot of them did something awful themselves. But hey, someone got distressed and it reached BBC news and we have people in a holy crusade, lol.



Riley37 said:


> Whenever there's a thread which involves sexism, misogyny, or related topics, someone posts about how the hobby (and the related industry) are DOOMED if they follow the agenda of "could we please have less sexism, harassment, rape, and misogyny in TRPG".
> 
> TRPG has been an established hobby for over fifty years. How long have Chicken Littles been declaring the imminent end of TRPG, unless TRPG goes exactly the way THEY want it to go?
> 
> Green Ronin is still in business.



Who declared the end of RPGs? Sorry, it wasn't me and I don't care, I can always play with the material I have, no need to pay to play.
I only say that people should avoid playing with strangers 18+ rated games if the fantasy can distress them, as simple as that.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> Have you seen the news? Obviously you are wrong.
> And sanitized for what? Perhaps someone is distressed by violence, torture, etc.
> 
> 
> ...




Thankfully the organizers of UKGE (and, I would suspect, most other cons) don’t agree with you, and expect GMs to maintain certain standards of decency even for 18+ games.


----------



## dco (Jun 5, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Thankfully the organizers of UKGE (and, I would suspect, most other cons) don’t agree with you, and expect GMs to maintain certain standards of decency even for 18+ games.



Good, as I said if they have their rules people should follow them, no need to convince me of something I'm really convinced.
Let me know what is allowed in those cons and we talk about ethics and decency.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 5, 2019)

mrm1138 said:


> Call me crazy, but it seems to me that a con game in which a GM is running for a group of people s/he has never met before is the _perfect_ place for "safe games" in a "sanitized environment."




A safe place isn't just a place where people are polite to one another and treat each other with respect.  It's a designated area where, among other things, people won't have to be exposed to ideas they find upsetting, disagreeable, or challenging.  I can't promise a safe space if I'm running a con in a public venue. 

That said, of course I'm not not going to spring sexual assault on my player characters.  Just because my game isn't a safe space doesn't mean anything goes.  There are a lot of things I'm not going to work into a convention game precisely because the venue is public and there's an excellent change I won't know any of the players.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 5, 2019)

I would think that we could get general agreement that there's a difference between playing a game where dice rolls represent "killing things" with swords...and going into the details of torture, dismemberment, rape, slaughter of civilians, etc.  And that when the GM plans to cross the (admittedly blurry) line into those things, it would be a good idea to make sure that everybody at the table is _fully_ on board with it.

The problem is that the line _is_ blurry, and anybody with a political agenda can exploit the difficulty/impossibility of defining the exact line as an argument for their views.

But in a practical sense, if we just err on the side of caution, everybody can have fun playing the games.  I would think that being a little bit extra cautious ("Hey...this game is going to include some graphic torture scenes. If you'll find that upsetting it might not be the session for you.") doesn't cost anything, but erring the other way risks upsetting people. And even if you think "those people" are unnecessarily or irrationally sensitive, why would you want them to have a bad experience? 

 Or maybe what some are thinking is that "catering" to those people is a slippery slope leading to the degradation of their rights?

The trick I learned to finally have patience with other drivers is to imagine that it's my mom driving that car.  That trick may be applicable here.


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> Have you seen the news? Obviously you are wrong.




To which news are you referring, and how does it demonstrate that I am "obviously" wrong?



> And sanitized for what? Perhaps someone is distressed by violence, torture, etc.




I was quoting you (hence the quotation marks), so it's whatever you consider to be sanitized.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 5, 2019)

Somehow, this whole incident just gets more and more sordid.



dragoner said:


> Yes, he wrote "In Defense Of Rape", so that his coming to their defense is but damning with faint praise.






Immortal Sun said:


> HAHAHAHAA wow people are actually defending this? God damn the internet is so predictable. JFC


----------



## Morrus (Jun 5, 2019)

dco said:


> Those players should not play rpgs with people they don't know.




While I am aware that blaming the victim is common in certain segments these days, we’re not going to do it here. Don’t post again in this thread, please.


----------



## MrDM69 (Jun 5, 2019)

I think that you should make sure everybody at or around the table is okay with something like this (or just the people at the table and keep the game quiet) before you do it.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 6, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Somehow, this whole incident just gets more and more sordid.




Sadly, the more people look into these incidents, the deeper the rabbit hole tends to go.  First it's "we found a history..." then it's "oh and he's done worse things..." followed by "some of the folks who defend him are also involved..."

I'm sure some folks would like to pretend these are "lone wolves" or "disturbed individuals" but the reality is there's a trend and the trend is highly concerning.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 6, 2019)

Anyone who makes policy or takes punitive action without fact-checking things, or basing decisions on social media rumors and the mere existence of accusations, etc. is not helping themselves nor anyone else.  The way to deal with any such event as the OP is the same as it always has been: Verify what actually happened to the best of your abilities; take appropriate action based on that; tell social media and rumormongers to take a hike.  And then if you want to make a policy about such things just be sure you have means and the will to enforce it, or again, you're not helping anyone.

Geez, I'd have thought it was S.O.P. to have any DM of _any _game at any con of reasonable size sign some form that _spells out_ what kind of subject matter is okay or not okay.  Don't introduce questionable material if you're a DM, don't permit it being introduced by players at your table.  If you have no such policy in place then slap _yourselves_ on the wrist and PUT IT in place.  If anyone was out of line, official policy or no, take appropriate action and move onward and upward.  If someone wants to run a dark, deviant, questionable, or downright offensive anything at your con _you don't have to let them_ (unless if that's the whole point of your con?) and if you do it's your own flippin fault if people take issue with it.

This isn't hard to figure out.  When people do offensive things just kick them out and tell them not to come back.  If an incident is blown out of proportion then blow it back into proportion.  It's not magic.  Just be decent, reasonable humans - both to avoid causing problems and to solve them when they arise.  Is practical decency really so far gone that people don't just grok this by reflex?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 6, 2019)

I am curious what people thought of the interview with the GM and his explanation for what happened?


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> A safe place isn't just a place where people are polite to one another and treat each other with respect.  It's a designated area where, among other things, people won't have to be exposed to ideas they find upsetting, disagreeable, or challenging.  I can't promise a safe space if I'm running a con in a public venue.
> 
> That said, of course I'm not not going to spring sexual assault on my player characters.  Just because my game isn't a safe space doesn't mean anything goes.  There are a lot of things I'm not going to work into a convention game precisely because the venue is public and there's an excellent change I won't know any of the players.




There's more or less a spectrum with Care Bears on one end, and Watchmen towards the other end. The schedule or program of events lists games with blurbs which often indicate where each game falls on that scale. At a recent con I played "Fall of Magic"; at the beginning, the GM noted that player choices could tilt the game towards humor or towards bleak (or towards bleak humor), and asked the players to say how far towards grim we were willing to go. It's a bit like restaurants asking whether to prepare a dish with mild, medium, or hot spicing. Those are three valid options. Kevin Rolfe's game at UK Expo went beyond "hot"; perhaps the Scoville Scale analogy for what he did is "pepper spray directly to the eyes".

Can I be exposed to ideas which are challenging, without being exposed to "you wake up handcuffed to each other in the back of a van"?


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

dco said:


> I've seen far worse things than rape, like being tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, eaten alive...




“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate." - Roy Batty

Here's the thing, though. I doubt that any of the players in that game at UK Expo had, in their previous experience, been tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, or eaten alive. It's even possible that none of them had ever known anyone who's been tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, or eaten alive. Those are events which are more common in the fantasy genre, than in real life in the First World (with shades of grey on "killed", as death-by-homicide rates vary and war veterans may have killed people and/or seen people killed).

It's possible that one or more of the players have survived rape. It's darn near certain that at least one of the players knows someone (male, female or otherwise) who's been raped. Not all men hear the stories; not unless they're clearly the kind of man who will listen, without mocking, blaming, shaming or denigrating the survivor; but if you know ten women, then you probably know someone who's been raped.

So you're lumping apples with oranges.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 6, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I am curious what people thought of the interview with the GM and his explanation for what happened?




Smells fishy to me. If the GM was going for an Inbetweeners kind of vibe in which the PCs start in a compromising position and hijinks ensue, he didn't get off to a good start. My guess, even if he did intend for the PCs to have sore asses because of the squirts, he probably just described them waking up naked in a van with sore asses and left it to the players to infer what that signified. I wouldn't be surprised if he did so deliberately knowing that players might interpret it as being anally raped. While a show like the Inbetweeners might be able to play some of that off with humor (particularly around a character like Jay), it isn't going to work for your average con game. And obviously so.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 6, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate." - Roy Batty
> 
> Here's the thing, though. I doubt that any of the players in that game at UK Expo had, in their previous experience, been tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, or eaten alive. It's even possible that none of them had ever known anyone who's been tortured to death, mutated, killed, sacrificed, dismembered, or eaten alive. Those are events which are more common in the fantasy genre, than in real life in the First World (with shades of grey on "killed", as death-by-homicide rates vary and war veterans may have killed people and/or seen people killed).
> 
> ...




I've been mutated.  It's how I got my superpowers.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I've been mutated.  It's how I got my superpowers.




I was careful not to completely rule out the possibility!

As an undergrad, I volunteered as a subject in several Psychology and Cognitive Science experiments, for pocket money, the advancement of Science, and the chance of an experiment going horribly awry, causing an origin story. I also spent a semester in Italy, visiting many archaeology sites (Rome is one of the best places to study Roman history), but failed to stumble across any Etruscan or Punic tablets of magical rituals.

Here's a cartoon on the topic:
http://www.lunarbaboon.com/comics/powers.html


----------



## macd21 (Jun 6, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I am curious what people thought of the interview with the GM and his explanation for what happened?




I think his explanation for what happened confirmed that what the players said was true and that the con was right to kick him. ‘If only I’d remembered to cover the characters in poo’ is both the weirdest and lamest defense I’ve ever seen.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Smells fishy to me. If the GM was going for an Inbetweeners kind of vibe in which the PCs start in a compromising position and hijinks ensue, he didn't get off to a good start. My guess, even if he did intend for the PCs to have sore asses because of the squirts, he probably just described them waking up naked in a van with sore asses and left it to the players to infer what that signified. I wouldn't be surprised if he did so deliberately knowing that players might interpret it as being anally raped. While a show like the Inbetweeners might be able to play some of that off with humor (particularly around a character like Jay), it isn't going to work for your average con game. And obviously so.




Yeah, I pretty much have to go with [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] here.  His explanation leaves a lot more questions than answers, and, frankly, I'm having a pretty hard time believing that a player would be that disturbed by a depiction of rape that it was a simple "misunderstanding" and that he had no idea, not a single clue that anything was awry.  IOW, he's trying to paint the player as fabricating the whole thing just for attention.  I'm really not buying it.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I am curious what people thought of the interview with the GM and his explanation for what happened?




I watched a bit of it. What I saw did not impress me. From the start, he refers to the PCs, the adventuring party, as "the lads". A bunch of lads, drunk, at 1AM, outside a kebab shop, trying to come up with the money for a snack... that's an important scene in an adventure story? Did he assume that all of the players would be fans of "lad culture", or that players of all ages and all genders would enjoy playing as "the lads"? Did he consider that (a) one or more of the players might have had the actual experience of waking up with missing clothing and sore private parts, and (b) that a player might have this experience after being raped by a "lad culture" participant (or group)?

How does that kebab shop scene fit into "Tales from the Flood"? How is that a story about teens versus monsters, in a society falling apart as high tech becomes supernaturally corrupted? Was he was trying to break new ground in TRPG which recreates situation comedy rather than action-adventure stories? I suppose he might have tried Fiasco, but that's not even much of a Fiasco story seed.

I read elsewhere an account in which he cites lack of sleep as a factor in how well he communicated during and after the session. As if that were some external factor which happened to him, rather than *a consequence of his actions and choices*. When I DM/GM for a con, part of my preparation is good self-care in the 24 hours before the session, so that I can bring my A-game (so to speak).

Again: not impressed.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Smells fishy to me.




So to speak.

If I came across some people who were drugged unconscious and covered in feces, and somehow it was up to me to take care of them, then I'd probably remove their clothes and use a spray hose to wash them clean. I would not handcuff them. Handcuffs indicate coercion or worse. I would not put them in a van. Putting people in a van, without their consent (or on false pretenses) is a sexual predator trope. (See the Urban Dictionary listing for "white van".)

Either Rolfe didn't think through what conclusions people would form, which is incompetent, or he *hoped* that someone would form the obvious conclusion, so that he could then feel superior to the players when they proved to be wrong.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jun 6, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> ... or he *hoped* that someone would form the obvious conclusion, so that he could then feel superior to the players when they proved to be wrong.




This is a definite thing in our little community.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 6, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> It's possible that one or more of the players have survived rape. It's darn near certain that at least one of the players knows someone (male, female or otherwise) who's been raped. Not all men hear the stories; not unless they're clearly the kind of man who will listen, without mocking, blaming, shaming or denigrating the survivor; but if you know ten women, then you probably know someone who's been raped.
> 
> So you're lumping apples with oranges.




Not only that, but fighting and killing monsters can be very light hearted and fun. Where as rape is never any of those two things, not even when it is fictionalized.

Wether torture belongs in a D&D campaign is a point of discussion. It's not something I would throw at players at a con either, and always discuss with the players before introducing it in a campaign.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 6, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I am curious what people thought of the interview with the GM and his explanation for what happened?




Without the actual recording it is still very much she said/he said. While his explanation leaves some gaps, it does seem very plausible and could lead to misinterpretation. 

What is interesting is where there is a big differences between UK Game Expo's statement, the initial twitter post that lead to the ban, and the press coverage and his side of things.

*Initial Tweet*

* Have our characters kidnapped and gang raped without discussing it with anyone first.

*UK Games Expo*

* The scenario included descriptions of sexual violence involving the players.  The players were understandably distressed and shocked by this content.

*Press BBC and Mirror particularly*

* the storyline described sexual abuse

The tweet is open to interpretation, things could have happened off camera, but it does make it sound graphic. The press and UK Games Expo, make it sound like that actual acts of sexual violence were described. If that were the case I think everyone would be right to be upset and a ban justified.

However the GM said they were drugged and kidnapped, that matches the tweet and woke up naked, handcuffed together in a van with sore bums.

So even if the GM is covering now, no description of sexual abuse actually occurred in game. It might have been a misinterpretation by the players in question, or it could have been intentional, if it was intentional then it's pretty dark horror but not as bad as say describing the gang-rape of minors(which some people have been claiming online). If it is as the GM says then it is certainly the sort of humour associated with The Inbetweeners. If it was as bad as the press have made out, I have to wonder why the players all stayed throughout the session and didn't leave or complain at the time.

He had advertised it as 18+ Horror game, and the use of veils (really horrific things happening but not being described, just implied) is pretty standard practice in horror games. If he had actually described sexual abuse in game then I think people would be right to be up in arms, and that's certainly what the press have said, but we know that the BBC for example didn't speak to anyone involved before running with their version of events. The Mirror said was a D&D game with "gang rape scenario", the actual incident was less than 2 minutes within a much larger game that wasn't D&D. (How do these people even call themselves journalists?)

Now a cross-over between The Inbetweeners and Hostel certainly isn't the game for everyone, but it certainly isn't some surprise rape fantasy in a game about minors which a lot of the buzz around this seemed to imply. The game he describes I would say is suitable to some conventions, but probably not run it at something like UK Games Expo which is a big family event with people of all ages, you can't predict who will walk past the table in a open room event. 

I think a lot depends on what the blurb about the game was, clearly there has been a clash between player and GM expectations.


----------



## Matthew Tyler-Jones (Jun 6, 2019)

I watched the interview, with a couple of caveats. Given “grimjim’s” angle, I am not sure I trust his transcription and editing of the replies. Even so, there are some interesting answers the GM gave, which I think deserved a clarifying question that we didn’t get, and some responses which I think were  lies. 

Cards on the table, I talked the to three players concerned, they played in a horror themed game I ran in the morning, I resolve need via DM with one of them to their tweet, and I met them in the evening. I feel I have slightly more direct knowledge of the incident that most commentators, though only from one side. 

At the same time, I have no wish to blacken the name of the GM. I am willing to believe that this was an out-of-Character -up on his part, and so I do not use his name in any discussion. I feel UKGE did the right thing, but I am not interested in joining the clamour to ostracise him from society (yet at least). 

All that said here are the points I want to raise:
He said that a complaint was not made direct to UKGE by the players. That UKGE reacted inappropriately to a tweet. I know that at least one player did make a direct complaint to UKGE.

He was a volunteer and thus a representative of UKGE. It is their absolute responsibility to decide how to respond. And as a volunteer he has no rights to any sort of employment tribunal, though there may be a UKGE volunteer grievance procedure he can appeal to. 

Not only did he say he “forgot to mention the poo” (though I don't see how that would have made their players’ perception of the events any better), he also “forgot” to explain that it wasn’t a rape scene when they talk about it afterwards. 

He then claims to have run the game “correctly” for a group of UKGE staffers later (but before he was challenged about the complaint). This sounds fishy to me, as though he realised how wrong he had been and was trying to cover his back. 

The players, when I talked to them later, were complaining not just about the nature of the scene, but his poor GMing generally, including railroading them into the scene, and is more grasp of the system he was using.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 6, 2019)

Matthew Tyler-Jones said:


> Even so, there are some interesting answers the GM gave, which I think deserved a clarifying question that we didn’t get, and some responses which I think were  lies.




Which are the lies, it's a pretty strong statement to make and then not call them out.



> Cards on the table, I talked the to three players concerned, they played in a horror themed game I ran in the morning, I resolve need via DM with one of them to their tweet, and I met them in the evening.




Interesting to me that they seem to have a preference for horror games, among all that was on offer.



> I feel UKGE did the right thing, but I am not interested in joining the clamour to ostracise him from society (yet at least).




I think the UKGE acted out of necessary in the current climate.



> He said that a complaint was not made direct to UKGE by the players. That UKGE reacted inappropriately to a tweet. I know that at least one player did make a direct complaint to UKGE.




Is this the lie you are accusing him of? All a question of timing really, did UKGE become aware and react to the tweet before an actual complaint went in, did they approach people, and then they said yeah I did have a problem. Did someone come later or at the actual time, did they complain to one person but it didn't get back to the same people that approached the GM. Far too many variables.



> He was a volunteer and thus a representative of UKGE. It is their absolute responsibility to decide how to respond. And as a volunteer he has no rights to any sort of employment tribunal, though there may be a UKGE volunteer grievance procedure he can appeal to.




If the UKGE have misinterpreted the facts by saying there were "descriptions of sexual violence" when none occurred then I think he should be getting an apology from them. The UKGE also said it "breached both the letter and spirit of the UK Games Expo" and later "All games must still comply with the policies and the spirit of UKGE." As far as I can see there is nothing on the UKGE site that would make even having rape as a topic for a game against their policies.

On the section on Keeping You Safe. This is what is not tolerated.

• Use of bad language, verbal abuse or swearing at other attendees, exhibitors, Venue Staff, UK Games Expo staff and volunteers. 
• Any physical violence towards attendees, exhibitors, Venue Staff, UK Games Expo staff and volunteers, including pushing or shoving. 
• Racial abuse, sexual harassment and intolerance due to gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. 
• Causing damage to the convention buildings, exhibitor stands and property of any attendees. 
• Disorderly behaviour due the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Nothing about the content about games, that don't break those rules.



> Not only did he say he “forgot to mention the poo” (though I don't see how that would have made their players’ perception of the events any better), he also “forgot” to explain that it wasn’t a rape scene when they talk about it afterwards.




Well supposedly he never considered it one and they never raised it as one. You would think if they were that bothered by it they would have raised it. 



> He then claims to have run the game “correctly” for a group of UKGE staffers later (but before he was challenged about the complaint). This sounds fishy to me, as though he realised how wrong he had been and was trying to cover his back.




It's really unclear as to if the entire group were UKGE staffers or just one or two of them, I doubt he could have arranged a game at short notice.



> The players, when I talked to them later, were complaining not just about the nature of the scene, but his poor GMing generally, including railroading them into the scene, and is more grasp of the system he was using.




Well if poor grasp of system is bar to GM'ing I doubt you would find many GM's at all and certainly not for new games like he was running. You are tight on time at conventions so you expect a bit of railroading, but neither of these things really have any bearing on the real matter. Certainly they aren't a reason to ban someone.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 6, 2019)

Matthew Tyler-Jones said:


> At the same time, I have no wish to blacken the name of the GM. I am willing to believe that this was an out-of-Character -up on his part, and so I do not use his name in any discussion. I feel UKGE did the right thing, but I am not interested in joining the clamour to ostracise him from society (yet at least).




Thanks for your post.
Pretty much agree with the above sentiment about not besmirching his name and not ostracising him from society.


----------



## Matthew Tyler-Jones (Jun 6, 2019)

I mention only the horror game because some people had said “well if they didn’t want shock, they shouldn’t have signed up for a horror game”

I don’t *know* that any were lies, I just said I think some were. You have correctly identified which I am suspicious about. Timing is important here - he claimed to have first heard “about elevenish” and his game for UKGE team leaders was stopped about 11.30.  I assume that’s in the evening (or the next day) as I know the players concerned were at my game at 11am, and had not played his. I subsequently spoke to the players before 11pm (8ish by my recollection) by which time they had already spoken to UKGE so, UKGE had not responded to the tweets only.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 6, 2019)

Could well be that he'd heard of the tweet by that point, and the UKGE wouldn't tell him if there had been a complaint or not (which is sometimes the case in matters like this), but no one had complained to him.

It's one of those things that's easy to get mixed up about and doesn't really have that much bearing on things.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 6, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Thanks for your post.
> Pretty much agree with the above sentiment about not besmirching his name and not ostracising him from society.




Yeah.  I find the story...or at least the version of the story which seems most corroborated and probable...pretty disgusting and kind of unbelievable that anybody could _still_ be that ignorant/clueless.

But the correct response is not to destroy his life.  It will be better for him if he has a chance to learn/atone/improve, and better for everybody else if he doesn't become a martyr for the mouth-breathers in the "men's rights" movement.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 6, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> You would think if they were that bothered by it they would have raised it.




This is victim-blaming, a betrays a lack of understanding the serious-ness of the issues being raised. There's any number of reasons why they wouldn't have raised it in the moment. Two big ones off the top of my head:
(a): Sexualized violence is trauma, and has been pointed out many times, is unlike many of the other forms of trauma typically found in tabletop RPGs in that a significant portion of the player population has likely experienced it. "Shutting down", as it were, is an exceptionally common physiological response to trauma _(Frank)_. Silence in the face of something that shocking and potentially re-traumatizing should not be unexpected.
(b): The GM in question likely did not present himself as somebody it was safe to present such criticism to. Yes, the overall gaming population has changed a lot, and for the better, but people like the KIA subredditors and mouthbreathers like Grimjim are not exactly rarities. Their particular brand of gaslighting often only serves to reinforce the trauma already experienced, which nobody should have to feel obligated to put themselves through in order to lodge a complaint. From what we've seen from his response and the corners he's gone to to defend himself, such fears would not appear to have been misplaced.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 6, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## dragoner (Jun 6, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> The sad fact is that most people have been socialized to not speak up in that instance in many uncomfortable instances ...
> 
> In other words, it is unfortunately common for people to shut down (or polite laughter, etc.) in all sorts of situations; it is rarely helpful in almost any situation for someone to say that the issue had to have been raised immediately.




I agree. It is common to think before we speak, I don't know it is a sad fact, it probably is a contributing factor to PTSD, that's unhappy. Otherwise, thinking before one speaks is bad. And yes, it's almost absurd for someone to say the issue has to be raised immediately, that is relying on knee jerk reactions, worst of all. The GM is just digging themselves in deeper. Then again, if this is the same person that ran a kickstarter and never delivered, their honesty and character are suspect.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 6, 2019)

dragoner said:


> Then again, if this is the same person that ran a kickstarter and never delivered, their honesty and character are suspect.




You know, people are bitching about that a lot, but it's not connected with the behavior at UKGE at all. Plus, while the kickstarter is years late - it's actually still generating updates and content, which is doing better than others in the industry (Ken Whitman, I'm looking at you).

Frankly, I get tired of the raging complaints lodged by people about Kickstarters. There are people who actually engage in fraud (Ken) and there are others who are just really bad at project management. They aren't the same.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 6, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I've been mutated.  It's how I got my superpowers.
> 
> Just sayin'.




Bitten by an irradiated elf, I'm guessing.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> W You would think if they were that bothered by it they would have raised it.




With respect, maybe *you* would think that.  But you'd be forgetting the major complexities of human social interaction in so thinking.

End result, though, is a bias against direct confrontation - we all get along by *not* getting in each other's faces the moment we give offense.  Instead, we put up with bad behavior in the moment (for a wide variety of entirely valid reasons) and then address the issue afterwards - often via proxies.

The player, at the table, is *NOT* in a position of power in which they can expect an issue to be resolved well in the moment.  Waiting until afterwards, not saying anything, and then going to an authority, is quite common and accepted behavior.  We are taught this in kindergarten - don't hit back, go to the teacher.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 6, 2019)

Just for some context: someone tweeted the event description.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 6, 2019)

I think theres another thread to be pulled on/discussed here that has been brought up in a couple recent posts.

Whilst what this guy did is pretty terrible and his defense of it just does not make sense...

There is such a thing as disproportionate response and we must be careful not to engage too much in that. When it comes down to it, him being unable to GM at conventions anymore is probably what should happen...but trying to ruin other aspects of his life is unwarranted and just being needlessly vindictive.

That said? I think the worse sin here is the fact that he really does not believe what he did was that terrible. I'd be much more likely to advise a bit of mercy had he immediately and fully said 'I made a terrible mistake here, I didn't think, I feel bad I made the other players feel this way and that I did this to them'

Instead of what he has been saying: "People are lying about me, Im the REAL victim here, oh no I uh...I uh of course didnt mean it was Rape how could you think that?"

That shows me he really doesn't *get it* and probably should be shunned fully in the gaming/convention community


----------



## Gradine (Jun 6, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> I think theres another thread to be pulled on/discussed here that has been brought up in a couple recent posts.
> 
> Whilst what this guy did is pretty terrible and his defense of it just does not make sense...
> 
> ...




And even in this case, we can't be entirely certain if this was his initial, genuine reaction, or whether he was steered/coached in that direction by Desborough for his own ends.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 6, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Waiting until afterwards, not saying anything, and then going to an authority, is quite common and accepted behavior.  We are taught this in kindergarten - don't hit back, go to the teacher.




Well at UKGE they have a teacher in every room, which I'm sure if they had spoken to would have raise it with the GM. Seems they didn't do that, but sure going to twitter seems to be the adult way of dealing with problems nowadays. 

_*Roleplaying Room Captains*

Each room in the roleplaying area has an easily identifiable room captain whose role is to keep the rooms under observation and take action in the event of any problems. They can be approached by any player or GM who wished to raise an issue._


----------



## MarkB (Jun 6, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Well at UKGE they have a teacher in every room, which I'm sure if they had spoken to would have raise it with the GM. Seems they didn't do that.
> 
> _*Roleplaying Room Captains*
> 
> Each room in the roleplaying area has an easily identifiable room captain whose role is to keep the rooms under observation and take action in the event of any problems. They can be approached by any player or GM who wished to raise an issue._




Right, because raising a complaint in a crowded room within a few feet of the person you're complaining about wouldn't be socially awkward or uncomfortable at all.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 6, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Well at UKGE they have a teacher in every room, which I'm sure if they had spoken to would have raise it with the GM. Seems they didn't do that, but sure going to twitter seems to be the adult way of dealing with problems nowadays.




Twitter is, conveniently, a place to share stories.

Also at least one of the individuals did directly complain to UKGE.

Not that it actually matters.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 6, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> There is such a thing as disproportionate response and we must be careful not to engage too much in that. When it comes down to it, him being unable to GM at conventions anymore is probably what should happen...but trying to ruin other aspects of his life is unwarranted and just being needlessly vindictive.
> 
> That said? I think the worse sin here is the fact that he really does not believe what he did was that terrible. I'd be much more likely to advise a bit of mercy had he immediately and fully said 'I made a terrible mistake here, I didn't think, I feel bad I made the other players feel this way and that I did this to them'
> 
> ...




In the highly theoretical event that I was handling registration for a convention, and I noticed that one of the registrants was Kevin Wolfe, I'd ask other people with con management experience for advice.

In the absence of advice, off the cuff, I'd propose this response: a communication along the lines of "We have received and processed your registration. We are aware of your history. We advise you to closely read our Community Standards of Behavior (link goes here). Your welcome at GameCon IX is conditional: you may not run any games at our event, not even in the Open Gaming Room. What you do in your hotel room is beyond our authority, but even so, we encourage you to err on the side of caution and good taste."

I suppose the next step is noting which events he wants to join as a player, and either warn the GMs of those events, or give those GMs a veto on whether he plays at their tables? I dunno. I don't have experience running gaming conventions.

This falls short of full shunning, banning and ostracism. It leaves the con open to risk, if he behaves badly and another participant blames the con for accepting his registration. It's not as simple as refusing his registration.

Derek Black turned away from Stormfront. Megan Phelps left Westboro Baptist. Maybe Kevin Wolfe can grow up. I want to leave SOME room for the possibility.

(Yes, I have judgmental opinions regarding Stormfront and Westboro. I do not expect all other EN World participants to share those opinions, but I also make no apologies for holding them.)


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> /snip
> I think the UKGE acted out of necessary in the current climate.
> /snip




Which climate would that be?  The one where it's no longer considered acceptable to use your position of authority to inflict mental harm on others and they should just "man up" and take it?  Or the "current climate" that feels that people should be held accountable for inflicting mental harm on others?

What, exactly, is this "current climate" you are referring to?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Which climate would that be?  The one where it's no longer considered acceptable to use your position of authority to inflict mental harm on others and they should just "man up" and take it?




The climate where everything is dealt with under a public microscope rather than, just between the people involved (I include UKGE as part of the people involved, just for clarity). Where the press are apt to creating sensational stories out of hearsay and rumour rather than actually talking to the people involved. Where people call for someone to end up on the sex offenders register for what was at something happening in a fictional space (admittedly clearly fringe elements of the community).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> The climate where everything is dealt with under a public microscope rather than, just between the people involved (I include UKGE as part of the people involved, just for clarity). Where the press are apt to creating sensational stories out of hearsay and rumour rather than actually talking to the people involved. Where people call for someone to end up on the sex offenders register for what was at something happening in a fictional space (admittedly clearly fringe elements of the community).




Umm, what? 

1.  Sex offenders register (which I have no idea if it exists in England) would only be for those convicted of a crime.  So, nope.

2.  Keeping this "quiet" simply allows these people to keep doing whatever it was they were doing.  

3.  What evidence do you have that no one from the media talked to the people involved?

Here's a thought.  If you are going to run a game in a public space, maybe, just maybe, don't include rape scenes in it.  I dunno.  I would have thought that that would have been pretty self-explanatory, but, apparently, some folks need to have stuff like that spelled out.  And, by making it public, instead of hiding it, other folks maybe can learn that no, you don't get to do whatever the hell you want to do in public spaces.

Not having a lot of sympathy here.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> The climate where everything is dealt with under a public microscope rather than, just between the people involved (I include UKGE as part of the people involved, just for clarity).




Ah yes, you mean the climate where we talk openly about bad behavior and bad actors, both to discourage future bad behavior but also to make it more difficult for bad actors to continue operating in the shadows by relying on our tendency to sweep things under the carpet and turn a blind eye to behavior that doesn't directly involve us. The climate we've made safer for damn near everybody by making it significantly less safe for perpetrators and predators.

You know, as opposed to the climate we used to have, where we all put on blinders so any accusations seemed wildly out of character and could be easily dismissed, allowing predators to thrive for years/decades before facing so much as social consequences, let alone anything more severe.

It's a much better climate, really.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Ah yes, you mean the climate where we talk openly about bad behavior and bad actors, both to discourage future bad behavior but also to make it more difficult for bad actors to continue operating in the shadows by relying on our tendency to sweep things under the carpet and turn a blind eye to behavior that doesn't directly involve us. The climate we've made safer for damn near everybody by making it significantly less safe for perpetrators and predators.
> 
> You know, as opposed to the climate we used to have, where we all put on blinders so any accusations seemed wildly out of character and could be easily dismissed, allowing predators to thrive for years/decades before facing so much as social consequences, let alone anything more severe.
> 
> It's a much better climate, really.




As the many priests and nuns of my acquaintance might say, “Evil loves to hide.”

They might even quote John 3:20:


> For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 7, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As the many priests and nuns of my acquaintance might say, “Evil loves to hide.”
> 
> They might even quote John 3:20:




I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved. 

Again, nothing against the faith or the church writ large, but it does provide us with a tragic example of pervasive and lasting harm caused by the type of myopic and cloistered “climate” some here appear to long for us to return to.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 7, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> In the absence of advice, off the cuff, I'd propose this response: a communication along the lines of "We have received and processed your registration. We are aware of your history. We advise you to closely read our Community Standards of Behavior (link goes here). Your welcome at GameCon IX is conditional: you may not run any games at our event, not even in the Open Gaming Room. What you do in your hotel room is beyond our authority, but even so, we encourage you to err on the side of caution and good taste."




This causes a lot of problems for the con and I don't think it's worth their effort.  They'll have to make sure convention personnel are aware of who this person is, what he looks like, and keep an eye on him at all times to make sure he isn't violating the conditions of his attendance.  Most con personnel (and GMs who aren't even con personnel) are volunteers and they shouldn't be burdened with this sort of task.  And then there's the liability issue the convention may have to deal with.  If there were an incident and the convention was sued they might be asked by a solicitor why they allowed someone they believed to be dangerous to attend.  And of course they'd also take a publicity hit if they allowed this individual to attend and he repeated his bad behavior.  

I'm not keen on destroying this guys life either.  But if I were running a convention I just wouldn't be willing to jump through hoops to ensure this guy could participate.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2019)

MGibster said:


> This causes a lot of problems for the con and I don't think it's worth their effort.  They'll have to make sure convention personnel are aware of who this person is, what he looks like, and keep an eye on him at all times to make sure he isn't violating the conditions of his attendance.  Most con personnel (and GMs who aren't even con personnel) are volunteers and they shouldn't be burdened with this sort of task.  And then there's the liability issue the convention may have to deal with.  If there were an incident and the convention was sued they might be asked by a solicitor why they allowed someone they believed to be dangerous to attend.  And of course they'd also take a publicity hit if they allowed this individual to attend and he repeated his bad behavior.
> 
> I'm not keen on destroying this guys life either.  But if I were running a convention I just wouldn't be willing to jump through hoops to ensure this guy could participate.




And, really, that's what this comes down to.  Every time these sorts of things come up, everyone jumps up and down talking about "investigating claims" and various other things that "should be done".  It's just not feasible.  It's no different than a bar or any other social gathering area.  When a complaint comes in, you deal with it and move on.  As a con runner, you don't have the right to "question witnesses" in any sort of legal sense, nor is it your responsibility to do so.  I don't want some con planner sitting in judgement over "well, I guess that complaint is good enough, but, that other one isn't."  No, it's not how this works.

A complaint is made, and it gets dealt with.  Even if we want to take the GM at his word and it's "only" kidnapping children and covering them with feces, well, as a con rep, do you really want that representing what you think should be played at your con?  If you do, then fair enough, be up front with con goers - tell them that you are not policing GM's and GM's are free to present whatever game they want, and caveat emptor.  

OTOH, if you are billing yourself as an all ages convention where you KNOW that there will be minors present, then it's your responsibility to ensure that games fit within those parameters and if a game or GM doesn't, they get the boot.  All the crap about "due dilligence" and "investigate" and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.  Con runners have neither the time, nor the inclination to "investigate".  You treat a claim as valid and deal with it.  

It utterly baffles me how much slack people are willing to cut folks.  I mean, there's nothing in Things from the Flood or Tales from the Loop that would even hint that this would be an expected scenario.  A thinly veiled reference to a gang rape scenario isn't what folks signed up for, I'm thinking, nor is it even remotely acceptable at (From the front page of the UKGE):



> Now in its 13th Year, UK Games Expo (UKGE) is the largest Hobby Games Convention in the UK. A fun event appealing to families and the general public as well as the enthusiast.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved.




I'm pretty sure you're catching DannyA's drift and enjoyment of the irony.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, it's not how this works.




Some of what you say does not match my experiences, both interacting with and working on convention security teams.



> All the crap about "due dilligence" and "investigate" and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.  Con runners have neither the time, nor the inclination to "investigate".  You treat a claim as valid and deal with it.




That's not usually how it works.  There's a convention security team, and they do *NOT* just boot anyone against whom a claim is made.  There is a process (exactly what it is varies from con to con).  You are correct that they are not police, but unless someone is caught _in flagrante delicto_ security does do at least some base inquiry with the people involved.

On one point we do agree - They don't need to have criminal justice level burden of proof, because it isn't a criminal case. So the wringing of hands over "innocent until proven guilty" isn't appropriate.  The burden of proof is more like, "Does security find this accusation hangs plausibly together after a few questions?"  For the level of discipline available at their disposal, that's fairly appropriate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved.
> 
> Again, nothing against the faith or the church writ large, but it does provide us with a tragic example of pervasive and lasting harm caused by the type of myopic and cloistered “climate” some here appear to long for us to return to.




Certainly!  I’d be disingenuous & hypocritical if I failed to admit that.  (See also the recently publicized Irish orphanage/forced adoption scandal.)

It’s a great example: evil acts were allowed to remain hidden from the general populace and even the body of the Church.  It festered and grew.  _Only when the scandal broke_ were more than a few offenders held responsible in any meaningful way, and reforms made (in 2007) that have diminished the number of _new_ cases to a trickle.

I will just point out that the rate of offenses to which you refer is no greater in Catholicism than in any other faith.  The reason it seems otherwise is sheer force of numbers: we make up approximately 40% of all Christianity worldwide, so there are more incidents in absolute numbers to report.

Since the scandal first broke decades ago, we’ve been forced by that prominence to re-evaluate how we handle penance, the sanctity of the confessional, and our clergy’s duty to report crimes.

Other religious organizations are only now beginning to emulate (or improve upon) some of the corrective measures we initiated in 2007 in the light of increasing scrutiny of their own bad actors.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Some of what you say does not match my experiences, both interacting with and working on convention security teams.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I completely agree.  Thank you for saying this better than I did.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Umm, what? 1.  Sex offenders register (which I have no idea if it exists in England) would only be for those convicted of a crime.  So, nope.



Exactly, I did say they were a bit extreme but they were twisting the use of the obscene publications act to claim, his waking up in a van with a sore bum was enough to warrant a criminal investigation. 







> 2.  Keeping this "quiet" simply allows these people to keep doing whatever it was they were doing.



Actually I imagine it would have ended up very similar with guys remaining events being cancelled as a precaution, and some advice given to him for future cons.







> 3.  What evidence do you have that no one from the media talked to the people involved?



The fact the person behind the initial tweet that kicked this all off has complained to the BBC about not being approached.







> Here's a thought.  If you are going to run a game in a public space, maybe, just maybe, don't include rape scenes in it.  I dunno.



He didn't consider it a rape scene, and it wasn't a rape scene. At worst it was really poorly considered off colour joke about something that happened off camera, very in keeping with the gross out comedy of something like The Inbetweeners.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

I think the GM getting banned is down to social media improving how institutions (like game cons) handle these issues. Just a few years ago I think the con organizers would have laughed this off - regardless of what their official policies were. Nowadays they know that letting someone get away with this  will bite them in the ass.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2019)

> At worst it was really poorly considered off colour joke about something that happened off camera...




No, *at worst*, it was a rape scene and he’s dissembling.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jun 7, 2019)

Given my previous experiences in the hobby (which I've described on this site before), I'm unsurprised that this still happens.  It's one of the reasons I don't attend play events at cons and stores, or play under GMs I don't know.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, it's not how this works.



I would hope that if you are going to ban someone indefinitely, which could possibly lead to bans at other conventions you at least take the time to listen to both sides and gather what evidence you can. Sure cancel their games for the convention while you do the investigation, because you need to act and you don't have the time.







> Even if we want to take the GM at his word and it's "only" kidnapping children and covering them with feces, well, as a con rep, do you really want that representing what you think should be played at your con?



No children were involved. The game was advertised as over 18, the players were all over 18, and the characters were all over 18. Stop trying to make it sound worse than it was. The con might be family friendly but they clearly allow 18+ limitations as his wasn't the only game with this restriction.







> It utterly baffles me how much slack people are willing to cut folks.  I mean, there's nothing in Things from the Flood or Tales from the Loop that would even hint that this would be an expected scenario.



Perhaps not, but people use system to run there own scenarios not necessarily close to the setting, I've not been able to see the full blurb, but if "lad's holiday, Club 18-30" have a reputation which certainly includes blackouts and not remembering how you ended up in a horrific situations.







> A thinly veiled reference to a gang rape scenario isn't what folks signed up for, I'm thinking, nor is it even remotely acceptable at (From the front page of the UKGE):



Again it wasn't a gang rape scenario, at worse the rape (if it occurred at all) happened off camera (veils are a pretty standard technique in RPGs) so it wasn't described, and rather than a scenario is was a few minutes, within the several hours of the game scenario.You keep using phrases to make it sound like it was a 3 hour ordeal of constant child rape, which anyone would agree would not be suitable. One off-camera ambiguous event during a long session in game labelled 18+ horror is not the same thing at all.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

The scenario featured the gang rape of a group of 18 year old boys. That it happened off-camera does not make it acceptable. That it was an 18+ game does not make it acceptable. The appropriate response to a GM doing this is to ban him from running games at your con, which is what happened. And there’s nothing wrong with letting others know about him, so they can make informed decisions as to whether they want to game with him.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jun 7, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Right, because raising a complaint in a crowded room within a few feet of the person you're complaining about wouldn't be socially awkward or uncomfortable at all.



  Some people will bend over backwards to blame the victims of any form of sexual misconduct rather than holding offenders accountable. I can think of a few more productive things I wish they might do from that position, instead.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 7, 2019)

Gradine said:


> ...it does provide us with a tragic example of pervasive and lasting harm caused by the type of myopic and cloistered “climate” some here appear to long for us to return to.



Really? People here have been calling for us to return to a particular unsavoury climate? The level of exaggeration that exists is astounding.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Really? People here have been calling for us to return to a particular unsavoury climate? The level of exaggeration that exists is astounding.



Yes? That’s not exaggerating at all. It’s a perfectly rational reading of some posters comments.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 7, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes? That’s not exaggerating at all. It’s a perfectly rational reading of some posters comments.



The single dude that got banned from this thread? I believe every other poster agreed with the banning of the individual from running games at future cons. Disagreement only occured on shunning him from the community at large. No one is asking for any return for a particular climate. EDIT: Everyone's pretty much on the same page here.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

Sadras said:


> The single dude that got banned from this thread? I believe every other poster agreed with the banning of the individual from running games at future cons. Disagreement only occured on shunning him from the community at large. No one is asking for any return for a particular climate. EDIT: Everyone's pretty much on the same page here.



No, Bagpuss, who decried the current climate (in which people who run rape scenarios at cons get called on their ).


----------



## jasper (Jun 7, 2019)

Ok what the heck is "Lad culture"? It sounds like a more offensive version of "animal house".


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, Bagpuss, who decried the current climate (in which people who run rape scenarios at cons get called on their ).



Did you not read my clarification on what I meant by the climate? It was mainly to do with the public shaming before the full details are out, not helped by the presses need to publish incorrect stories without talking to the parties involved.Nothing to do with not calling someone out for inappropriate content.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

jasper said:


> Ok what the heck is "Lad culture"? It sounds like a more offensive version of "animal house".



British version of the same sort of thing. "The subculture involves young men assuming an anti-intellectual position, shunning sensitivity in favour of drinking, violence, and sexism." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lad_culture But The Inbetweeners while the characters (well Jay mainly) try to behave like "Lads" it normally ends up badly for them.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inbetweeners). So a scenario where the lads go on an Club 18-30 holiday where they think they are going to get laid, but instead wake up thinking they have been assaulted, after a night they can't remember would be in keeping, especially if they later discovered they had actually just had a bad curry.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

jasper said:


> Ok what the heck is "Lad culture"? It sounds like a more offensive version of "animal house".



Basically that. It’s guys being ‘lads,’ meaning: dumb, crude, violent and misogynistic. It’s mostly middle-class teens who want to appear ‘tough.’ To a lad, the best things in life are drinking, watching football and shagging (often in that order). It’s the embodiment of toxic masculinity.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Did you not read my clarification on what I meant by the climate? It was mainly to do with the public shaming before the full details are out, not helped by the presses need to publish incorrect stories without talking to the parties involved.Nothing to do with not calling someone out for inappropriate content.



In other words a return to the climate in which the details never get out, the press never get wind of it (or ignore it if they do) and nobody gets called out for inappropriate content.Because that was how things used to go, under the old climate. Under the new one, a GM who ran an inappropriate game session has been identified and won’t be running such content at UKGE again. Hopefully other GMs will get the message, leading to fewer such incidents in future. So I’ll happily take the current climate over the crappy one we used to have.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 7, 2019)

I don't understand the objection to shaming people for bad actions.  Society has been founded on this principle for thousands of years.  Word gets out that you're doing something nasty and then other people remove you from their social circles.  If at some point down the road you clean up your act, you might be able to rejoin.  THIS IS NOT NEW.  It's not a "new climate" or a "new culture", this is how humans function.  "Social media" just makes it easier for humans to be the _social_ creatures they naturally are.  

Society relies on a number of different forms of punishment for members who act out.  Shame is one of those functions, "social pressure", "peer pressure" these are society's way of ensuring other members of society act within the bounds that society finds acceptable.  Are they always properly applied?  No of course not.

But suggesting that a person who clearly acts out should just get a talking-to and _none_ of the social punishment when this is clearly the time and place for social punishment to be properly applied is either suggesting that social punishment as a whole thing and a fundamental element of society shouldn't exist, *or* that this guy is undeserving of social punishment, ie: his actions weren't so bad.

So which is it?  Do you think his actions weren't so bad, or are you philosophizing that an entire element of human society that has existed since its inception (*loud horn noise*) is fundamentally flawed?  Because Option 1 is defending him, and this thread really isn't the place for Option 2.

So which is it?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

macd21 said:


> In other words a return to the climate in which the details never get out, the press never get wind of it (or ignore it if they do) and nobody gets called out for inappropriate content.



No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.


----------



## Michele (Jun 7, 2019)

Option 2.

First thing, many traditions existed since the beginning of social interaction, including slavery. We've not entirely removed that, but most people agree it was overall a bad idea. Human sacrifices to the gods also were great back in the good old days, but I do hope they have vanished long ago.

Secondly, has it occurred to you that popular opinion may sometimes happen to be _wrong?_ Lynchings were carried out based on popular opinion, and maybe sometimes the man who died had actually committed the crime. But we can't really know that, can we?
Now, I'm well aware that "we'll stop talking with you" is not the same punishment as "we'll hang you after having tortured you". But IMHO no punishment at all should be meted out unless every step has been undertaken to make sure the accused is really guilty.

That's why humanity introduced another tradition, even if it's not as ancient as punishment based on opinion. It's the rule of law, fair trial, rights of the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt etc. etc.

Note I'm not saying I have doubts about the culpability of the guy in this case. That's beyond the point. The point is that in "word gets out that you're doing something nasty", the "word" is far from being guaranteed to be true.

Social media makes it easier to be social? Maybe. Some sociologists think that we are still wired to live in a village, or in a large tribe before that. That there's an upper limit to the people we are able to consider and treat as knowable. And that online interaction still does not hold a candle to the _personal_ interaction we're built for. If they are right, then you might consider that shaming and avoiding a villager you knew since you were a kid, based on the "word" of other people you knew since you were a kid, was probably a choice that would be based on a better knowledge of the guy and of the talkers, and not taken as lightly as on social media today, based on the words of a media source and about a guy you had never heard about before.

So maybe social media only makes our social interactions _louder_, more far-reaching, and less balanced.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> I don't understand the objection to shaming people for bad actions.  Society has been founded on this principle for thousands of years.  Word gets out that you're doing something nasty and then other people remove you from their social circles.  If at some point down the road you clean up your act, you might be able to rejoin.  THIS IS NOT NEW.




No it is very old, and there is a reason public shaming was removed as a punishment when we became a more civilised society.I suggest you read *So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson*.



> So which is it?  Do you think his actions weren't so bad, or are you philosophizing that an entire element of human society that has existed since its inception (*loud horn noise*) is fundamentally flawed?  Because Option 1 is defending him, and this thread really isn't the place for Option 2.So which is it?




A little of option A, as the public shame seems to be about a whole scenario based around kidnapping and raping underage kids. Where are the reality of the situation is it was adult characters, in an over 18 game, which was clearly labelled horror, with a "lad's culture" theme and the incident happened behind a veil which is a common technique used in RPGs to allow for more distressing content to be covered safely.

And a little of option B, because yeah public shaming is wrong. It was removed from UK justice in the late 1800's and is a form of mob justice in the form it is today. Even convicted criminals can only have their conviction kept online for a month to show justice has been done, and Europe introduced the right to be forgotten for a reason.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.



No, actually, they don’t. Because if the people actually involved complain, nothing happens. If they complain, they risk harassment themselves. And most of the time they don’t complain, because of the previous two points. A lot of the time they just stop going to cons, and probably stop gaming.That is the ‘climate’ that was replaced by the one we have now. It was a climate that many people found hostile and unwelcoming, because of  like this, and because any time they tried to advocate for change, they’d be harassed out of the community by people defending the s. And it’s exactly what we would go back to if we listened to you and people like you. You’re so willing to bend over backwards to give s the benefit of the doubt that they’re never so much as questioned, never mind punished.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 7, 2019)

Michele said:


> Option 2.First thing, many traditions existed since the beginning of social interaction, including slavery.



Sorry, I stopped valuing your input when you compared _social shaming_ to *slavery*.  Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

*
Folks, do not get heated.  Do not invoke the language filter - that is an indication to the moderators that you are no longer discussing in a calm manner, and will have to be removed from the thread.*


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.




What you fail to see is that, if it isn't made visible, there is no need to answer to anyone, and behavior does not change.  This is proven by history.  When these things stayed quiet and private, as they did for decades, they were generally ignored, or swept under the rug.  Since it was effectively hidden, the conventions were not being held accountable for their choices, so there was no need to hold bad actors accountable, either.  We have the problems now because the culture you seem to want failed to correct behavior!

There is no accountability in a culture of silence.  Visibility means the public holds the UKGE (and other convention organizations) accountable, so they hold their content providers accountable.


----------



## jasper (Jun 7, 2019)

Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no. And I forget who propose it but having cons put him on a watch list just because he shows up. That is too far.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2019)

macd21 - I have a little more faith in a convention to actually respond than you, especially when they have this (see below) in their *Keeping you Safe* section. I also think you are far more likely to expose yourself to harassment by going public on twitter than keeping it with the convention staff.



> More than just words
> UK Games Expo believes that keeping us all safe is far more than a matter of having a policy - its about what we do to actively promote this environment.
> 
> This begins at the level of how we train our volunteers. All volunteers have to participate in a webinar which emphasizes and clarifies an active approach. This approach means doing something if you see a problem and not just ignoring it. One phrase we use in that training is:
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

jasper said:


> Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no.




Why not?

Really.  Why not?  

He can still go to the other cons.  He can play games.  He just can't run them.  What is he losing - the chance to run a handful of games a year?  Why is that such a big deal?  Given that the vast majority of people who go to conventions don't run games anyway, I fail to see how this is so excessive as to merit, "Hell, no."


----------



## Jonathan Tweet (Jun 7, 2019)

Back in 1988, I wrote an article for Gateways magazine about how you can't treat what happens in the game world as emotionally separate from the impact you're having on the flesh-and-blood players at the table. Thirty years later, here we are. My impression is that this sort of abusive behavior is in decline, but still...

Anyone remember Gateways? https://rpggeek.com/rpgperiodical/2110/gateways


----------



## Michele (Jun 7, 2019)

If the main point made about social shaming is that it is a long-held tradition of humanity, then comparing it other long-held traditions of humanity is nothing extraordinary.

The point is that being old does not equate with being good.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 7, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> macd21 - I have a little more faith in a convention to actually respond than you, especially when they have this (see below) in their *Keeping you Safe* section. I also think you are far more likely to expose yourself to harassment by going public on twitter than keeping it with the convention staff.



Cons have had policies like that for years, most of which were never enforced properly. That such policies have been improved upon and actually implemented properly is down to the climate you’re complaining about. And it’s hardly universal yet - many, if not most, cons today are still pretty shoddy in this regard. Even UKGE, for all that it has that policy, isn’t great - I’ve spoken to some of their volunteers who didn’t get the webinar and weren’t aware of the policy.Again: the reason things are changing for the better is because of the climate you decry. And it’ll improve more if people stop blaming victims for daring to raise their voice.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

Michele said:


> The point is that being old does not equate with being good.




Ah, but in this case, it isn't just old.  It is older than our species, and it is unlikely that we can have a functioning society without it.  

Shame is perhaps the single largest way that social primates control group behavior.  We have shame *for a reason* - we need a feedback mechanism to be able to get people to adjust their behavior.  

I mean, think of it - think of what the behavior of a person who literally had no shame would be like.  Do you think this person would be a constructive member of society?


----------



## Michele (Jun 7, 2019)

A sociopath by definition is not a constructive member of society. But I do notice that sociopaths also get dealt with by our societies by the alternative means I mentioned.

Of course, if we were all sociopaths, then things would be harder.

Note my main complaint about social shaming isn't that it's wrong. But that it can very easily be based on _wrong information_. 
We are all mightily concerned by fake news today, and nobody is worried that the input of a social shaming campaign on social media may be created by just that?
I wouldn't be surprised if slander is also a tradition as long as speech.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 7, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 7, 2019)

jasper said:


> Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no. And I forget who propose it but having cons put him on a watch list just because he shows up. That is too far.



Not able to make comments about UK law, but, here in the states, if an organization hires someone with a known history of ABC in situation DEF and then puts him back in a similar position of representation and it occurs again, their legal liabilities go through the roof.

With the publicity this one has gotten it would be hard to even get a "we didnt know" to pass against negligence. 

That is ignoring the potential for reputation damage to their con. 

I cannot imagine any convention who would see the upside of letting this fellow get to run a game officially at their event as worth that risk.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 7, 2019)

Did people pay to be at the table with that guy? I know I'd feel cheated if I were stuck at a table with that GM.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Why not?
> 
> Really.  Why not?
> 
> He can still go to the other cons.  He can play games.  He just can't run them.  What is he losing - the chance to run a handful of games a year?  Why is that such a big deal?  Given that the vast majority of people who go to conventions don't run games anyway, I fail to see how this is so excessive as to merit, "Hell, no."




Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value, but now in the extreme shaming culture that has erupted with social media - that's all chucked out the window in favor of the mob's pound of flesh. And as a liberal, the excessiveness, lack of nuance, and rigid unforgiving attitudes that I see piss me off.

Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. *Excessive* shaming and sanctions are destructive.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 7, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value, but now in the extreme shaming culture that has erupted with social media - that's all chucked out the window in favor of the mob's pound of flesh. And as a liberal, the excessiveness, lack of nuance, and rigid unforgiving attitudes that I see piss me off.
> 
> Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. *Excessive* shaming and sanctions are destructive.




The conversation around shaming and rehabilitation often has me split in two directions.

I'll start by saying that shame doesn't work. At least, in the sense that research shows it does a terrible job in changing an individual's behavior. Whether shame acts as a deterrent for others, I cannot say. I would argue that shame isn't the point though; the more important message about the more open and public climate regarding this is "you will not get away with this anymore". 

The more conflicting issue I have is with the nature of rehabilitation, chiefly: who's responsibility is it?

On the one hand, I feel that both an institution (such as UKGE) and a broader community (i.e; gamers) have the strongest obligation to make their spaces safe and inclusive. Now, there is disagreement on the virtues of inclusivity, but those disagreements are wrong. It's objectively _better_ for the hobby that our community has grown significantly in size, scope, and diversity. That means making it clear that bad behavior that threatens the safety of members of the community (of which starting a game off with the implication of rape certainly qualifies, whether you'd like to pretend it doesn't or not) needs to met with removal from the institution (UKGE) and potentially removal (through ostracization, if nothing else) from the community.

This certainly does not leave out the possibility for rehabilitation, but it places the onus of rehabilitation on the offender themselves, which requires good faith efforts to (a) recognize the harm of their actions, (b) make good faith efforts to apologize to those harmed, and (c) making the effort to change bad behaviors. This is difficult but hardly impossible; see Dan Harmon for a great example of this playing out. See also James Gunn. As opposed to, you know, running to the guy who penned "In Defense of Rape" to tell your side of the story.

I think there's a more nuanced discussion to be had about whether certain members within the community should also be responsible for aiding and supporting an offenders rehabilitation. Certainly not those individuals who are or would be most impacted by their actions, but certainly people in positions of privilege (cis white straight men, specifically) who could do more to step up, reach out to perpetrators, and help them understand why their behavior is wrong. I would definitely not agree that it's the responsibility of women, for example, to reform misogynists, serial harassers or sexual offenders, for example. Note that I'm aware there are people who are doing just that (I know Danny, for instance, has a lot of respect for the black man who goes around talking to and deprogramming KKK members), but that doing that kind of work as the target of people's bad behaviors takes a superhuman emotional effort, and nobody should be held up to that kind of standard. People are allowed to prioritize their safety, physical, mental, or otherwise.

I also don't think social ostracization _precludes_ the possibility of rehabilitation. The research showing that shame often has a net _negative_ effect on individual behavior certainly makes it less likely, which is why it sometimes gives me pause, but again, I think that both individuals and communities have a stronger obligation to prioritize their safety than they do in rehabilitating bad actors. And again, while it makes the rehabilitation _harder_... so? Do we have an obligation to make rehabilitation _easy?_ Shouldn't it take effort and work?

And is there a difference between what is right and what is practical? 

I agree that this is a complicated and complex issue where the right answer lies between "gtfo forever goodbye" and "everyone deserves a good faith second chance guys!" And I think we're still stumbling our way to that right answer. But we don't get there by just ignoring it or sweeping it under the rug or putting our fingers in our collective ears and screaming "this doesn't concern me!"


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value




*If you are going to try to make this political, please leave the thread now before you get booted.  There will be precious little pataience for this.

This is not about politics or government.  This is about how people in our hobby relate to and treat each other.

I hope that is 100% clear to everyone here.*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 7, 2019)

Um... he was using liberal in the classical sense, not in the modern American polemic sense.  I know because I'm usually nowhere near [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] politically, but understand his point about liberal values.  It's Enlightenment liberal, not politics liberal.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 7, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> There's a "right" kind of group?
> 
> That's almost...more disturbing.




There are games where rape is part of the setting, but not a dominant factor in play.

Hell, the namesake family in Pendragon... Arthur is the product of rape by deception (via Merlin's illusion); Mordred is even creepier - his sire was raped by deception, too, and his mother was his father's half-sister. Lancelot is boning his best friend's wife for half the timeline. 
And, in a couple spots (in published adventures), players who go a pillaging have to fail lustful or add raping to the glossed over off-screen.  (Uther period.) 

Some other genres likewise make it reasonable for rape to occur off-screen. Grey Ranks (set in the Ghettos of WW II poland) comes to mind.

As for playing through the rape "on-screen" - in certain groups, with certain situations and prior consent, it can be a powerful (even traumatic) experience. Preludes in Vampire come to mind, and the whole vampire embrace is a metaphor for rape, anyway.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Um...





We have a rule against arguing moderation in-thread.  Morrus is really quite specific on that point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. *Excessive* shaming and sanctions are destructive.




Of course, one man’s “excessive” is another’s “not quite enough”.  

Yes, there are known objective boundaries that delineate where shunning, exclusion and similar social penalties can become harmful, abusive or even torturous- essentially the nonviolent equivalent of the death penalty.  But even then, for some people, in certain situations, that is seen as “punishment fitting the offense.”

Consensus on that, then, is probably difficult to achieve....but it’s worth discussing.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> We have a rule against arguing moderation in-thread.  Morrus is really quite specific on that point.



Sorry, on tapatalk it's not in color.  Missed the tags in the quote block.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 8, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation.




Well, first of all, does it really deny that possibility? We're not talking about banning this individual from DMing, only banning him from doing so during certain periodical public events. He can do as much DMing as he likes outside of those events, and can choose to better himself or not to do so.

And second, how could anyone possibly adjudicate whether or not someone has "rehabilitated" their DMing style? What do you do, sit him down with an Appeal Committee, and have him run a game for them?


----------



## DammitVictor (Jun 8, 2019)

MarkB said:


> And second, how could anyone possibly adjudicate whether or not someone has "rehabilitated" their DMing style? What do you do, sit him down with an Appeal Committee, and have him run a game for them?



  I think I mentioned upthread that I think a simple apology should suffice, if it is of the "I am sorry that I hurt people" variety rather than "I am sorry people got hurt."


----------



## MarkB (Jun 8, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> I think I mentioned upthread that I think a simple apology should suffice, if it is of the "I am sorry that I hurt people" variety rather than "I am sorry people got hurt."




It's a start, but it's hardly a reliable indicator of reformed behaviour. And "But he apologised!" would be a poor excuse for the organisers to fall back on if he was allowed into another con and then caused similar issues.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2019)

Two or three strikes could result in a permaban.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2019)

Again, how is banning someone from running games at a con "excessive" shaming?  Seriously?  You screwed up, and you don't get to do that activity anymore at that place.  Seems pretty standard to me.

I mean, if I screw up at work, I get fired and I don't get to work at that place anymore.  How is this any different?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Again, how is banning someone from running games at a con "excessive" shaming?  Seriously?  You screwed up, and you don't get to do that activity anymore at that place.  Seems pretty standard to me.
> 
> I mean, if I screw up at work, I get fired and I don't get to work at that place anymore.  How is this any different?



Well, to be fair, not all screwups at work are a one and done firing offense.  SOME are, but not all.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, to be fair, not all screwups at work are a one and done firing offense.




Well, also to be fair, this guy was not an employee, and firing him was not denying him a paycheck.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 8, 2019)

Seems to me that the level of stupid/ignorance required to run such a scenario is justification in itself for a permaban. Even if the git apologizes and claimed reform, you just couldn't trust his judgement enough to know if he actually understood what that meant....who knows what else he might set up for the "shock value".


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 8, 2019)

The guy already has two strikes:
1) Running that moronic scenario.
2) Trying to weasel out of any responsibility.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2019)

DannyA said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, not all screwups at work are a one and done firing offense. SOME are, but not all.




Well, sure.  But, I'm fairly sure that if my screw up at work makes BBC news, then, I'm probably going to be clearing out my desk on Monday.  

But, my point was, folks get fired for screwing up.  This guy screwed up, regardless of how badly you think he did.  He made the con look bad and brought a lot of bad publicity to the event.  How would firing this guy be a completely unreasonable reaction?


----------



## Matthew Tyler-Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

John Dodd, in charge of RPGs at UKGE, and other expos, and the investigator in this case, has written this Blog Post, I hope the last word on the matter:
http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 8, 2019)

Matthew Tyler-Jones said:


> John Dodd, in charge of RPGs at UKGE, and other expos, and the investigator in this case, has written this Blog Post, I hope the last word on the matter:
> http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html



I will reply to the info in that blog that was new... if I read it right, the GM in question **was** the sanctioned by the con and identified room monitor. 

That puts the whole"why not report directly to con" vs social media and word of mouth in a whole different light to me.

"The reason why the Room Captain didn’t step in on the game when it went sideways is because the GM in question was the Room Captain, he’d earned that position with years of good work and trust."

Given how much emphasis got placed on how the victims did not go to con officials first - if this bit is true - I think its optimistic to think this will be the last word.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> That puts the whole "why not report directly to con" vs social media and word of mouth in a whole different light to me.




I am not sure where you are going with this, but let us be clear that the room captain was by no means the only way that the con had to contact them directly.

From the UKGE's page, titled "Keeping you safe":



> *How to get Help*
> What to do if you have a problem, grievance or complaint: Ask a Blue Shirt!
> 
> *Help desks:* There is a help desk in Hall 1, Hall 2 and in the Hilton Hotel Library Room. These are manned by 'Blue Shirts'. Blue Shirts are worn by our ambassadors. The ambassadors sole job is to help you the visitor. Just go along and ask for help.
> ...




And yes, if the room captain has gone off the rails, that does put a dent in one's confidence, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to use the recommended communication paths.  

The last time I had to report an issue at a convention, the issue was with a member of the security staff.  The *rest* of the security staff, however, did not take it lightly, and the guy was dealt with satisfactorily.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 8, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I am not sure where you are going with this, but let us be clear that the room captain was by no means the only way that the con had to contact them directly.
> 
> From the UKGE's page, titled "Keeping you safe":
> 
> ...



Perhaps we differ in degrees but, to me, in my experience, having more than one touted to report problems is all well and good *but* for a fair number of folks, seeing that the person in charge of your room is the "problem" would tend to make one look for other avenues. This isxedpecisllybttue if any interactions had been seen - which are common- which made you think those other con folks were friends. 

Obviously this I'd not limited to cons snd I think we all might have heard maybe at least one case in our collective lifetimes where reporting to pals or co-workers someone causing a problem did not go well - or as well as bringing it to kore independent scrutiny. 

Or maybe that is just me up that has seen that ever. 

So, like I said, this for me puts in a different light the dismissal efforts of the issue that target their move to put it into the public eye immediately as opposed to finding another con staffer first.

It also helps keep the "other cons" reaction in a context as well. 

But hey, that's just me. 

And again, I must preface this with an "if true" since I have no way of knowing. 

But someone on the staff as "room captain" claiming to be so unaware that this was outside the acceptable policies raises more questions than just about this GM.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Not able to make comments about UK law, but, here in the states, if an organization hires someone with a known history of ABC in situation DEF and then puts him back in a similar position of representation and it occurs again, their legal liabilities go through the roof.
> 
> With the publicity this one has gotten it would be hard to even get a "we didnt know" to pass against negligence.
> 
> ...



Oh really. I only knew about it due ONE facebook post and this thread. Sorry Enworld, you not big enough for all con organizers to touch base with you.  As to facebook post, I always suspect FB posts. Even if link to a news article. It takes two before I even think the post is truth.
And what happens when Con A bans Jasper Taylor Stupid for being a scummy piece of trash. Then Con B bans Jasper Todd Stupid because they did not do a full name check. Then Con B takes to social media an ruins Jasper Todd rep by stating they ban him for his actions at Con A.

edit to add 
From the blog post. ...Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
....
And people ask why I use Social media not so seriously.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, sure.  But, I'm fairly sure that if my screw up at work makes BBC news, then, I'm probably going to be clearing out my desk on Monday.
> 
> But, my point was, folks get fired for screwing up.  This guy screwed up, regardless of how badly you think he did.  He made the con look bad and brought a lot of bad publicity to the event.  How would firing this guy be a completely unreasonable reaction?



You are firing a dude for something which did not happen at his place of work, did not involve his work business. Sorry Mr. Hussar here is box of stuff, the bobby will walk you to personel to pick up your last paycheck. The Boss saw you moon the winning side at last night's Super bowl.  There is a reason some places do not allow a morality clause in your employment contract/ hr polices.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> You are firing a dude for something which did not happen at his place of work, did not involve his work business. Sorry Mr. Hussar here is box of stuff, the bobby will walk you to personel to pick up your last paycheck. The Boss saw you moon the winning side at last night's Super bowl.  There is a reason some places do not allow a morality clause in your employment contract/ hr polices.




I'm fairly certain when Hussar says this DM was "fired" he means he was fired _from the convention_, not from ya know, his personal job at home.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 9, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> Hell, the namesake family in Pendragon... Arthur is the product of rape by deception (via Merlin's illusion); Mordred is even creepier - his sire was raped by deception, too, and his mother was his father's half-sister. Lancelot is boning his best friend's wife for half the timeline.




You have a strong point about what's already in the mix of existing TRPGs. That said, I see a difference between rape and infidelity. Arthur discovering that Lancelot and Guinevere have an affair is one thing. Arthur discovering that Lancelot has taken Guinevere against her consent, by threat or force, is another thing entirely!


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> I'm fairly certain when Hussar says this DM was "fired" he means he was fired _from the convention_, not from ya know, his personal job at home.



Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Oh really. I only knew about it due ONE facebook post and this thread. Sorry Enworld, you not big enough for all con organizers to touch base with you.  As to facebook post, I always suspect FB posts. Even if link to a news article. It takes two before I even think the post is truth.
> And what happens when Con A bans Jasper Taylor Stupid for being a scummy piece of trash. Then Con B bans Jasper Todd Stupid because they did not do a full name check. Then Con B takes to social media an ruins Jasper Todd rep by stating they ban him for his actions at Con A.
> 
> edit to add
> ...



Not a lawyer.

My bet is no that there is zero liability incurred for refusing to allow someone to run a game or have a position of authority at your con for any reason not explicitly prohibited by law. But that likely varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

This issue in question and the banning from other cons in the UK being mentioned - did hit her, did hit FB, did hit Twitter, did hit reddit and made it to BBC news. Obviously someone could whrn a position of potential liability hits claim ignorance before giving this person a supervisory role and try and get by a possible negligence claim...  that's a kill they could choose to fight on... but in my experience there has to be a huge huge upside to having this kind of thing get authority given after an event like this.

You can try and go on or work the other UK cons banning to tweets or whatever, but iirc the "investigator" mentioned that happened. **after** their investigation and tied it to their own relationship to some of those cons. 

"Given that I am also RPG manager for Airecon, Dragonmeet, and Longcon, he will also be pulled from those conventions for the foreseeable future, a question many have been asking."

So, whatever.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.



I can get that you may be upset at what you see as injustice in other situations you may have encountered, but this cases seems to have had more to it than just "net rage" and "social media mobs" run amok. 

To me, it's a real disservice to those involved in the incident, investigated, tried to find resolutions etc to basically lump it in with what you may see as other cases of unjustified outrage and steps taken.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

To be more on point
Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.




So?  After reading anything in this thread or those articles do you think any of that is happening in this situation?


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.




You say that as if this is a phenomenon which only happens as a result of social media.

Did you hear about that time some professionals in the Hollywood film industry got fired, because of public pressure related to their off-the-job political activity, long before the Internet existed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> To be more on point
> Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.




What the truck does that have to do with anything at all?


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> So?  After reading anything in this thread or those articles do you think any of that is happening in this situation?



I have no trouble with the con head banning him. Or Banning him from any con the con head works for. But that is all.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> What the truck does that have to do with anything at all?




 Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
******
What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
*****
Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
So 12 out of the 20+ people HAD the WRONG NAME.  So we have up to 12 GMS who have been slandered.  Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> You say that as if this is a phenomenon which only happens as a result of social media.
> 
> Did you hear about that time some professionals in the Hollywood film industry got fired, because of public pressure related to their off-the-job political activity, long before the Internet existed?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist



Doh. I saying it is worst now.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> To be more on point
> Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.



This has nothing to do with this case. 
In most cases, a con would just refuse to sanction the participation and not go social about it. Nobody wants to bring up risks and negatives in their promotions.

This seems to be hunting for a way to tie some social media mob bad agenda to this case and topic.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
> ******
> What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
> *****
> ...




No, we have 12 uses of the wrong name. There is nothing so far that sts they named other GMs. It could have been typos, incomplete names or anything. 

This conclusion seemed driven by agenda not derived from what was said.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 9, 2019)

In the transcript of the interview, Kevin Rolfe says he told the players that their characters woke up in the back of a van, naked, and handcuffed to each other. I infer, from Rolfe's account, that he then *immediately* had men with guns appear, expel the PCs from the van, and tell the PCs to run.

Among the many things Rolfe did wrong, here's one: in a convention game, a scene in which the PCs become unclothed, by *any* cause other than their volition and action. I would not go there, and cannot recommend going there, in a convention game. Consider all the times that a villain has captured the Justice League, removed Batman's utility belt, and left them in a deathtrap. In how many of those scenes has the villain stripped the League members naked, and handcuffed them together? (Other than erotic fan-fiction, which has purposes AFAIK incompatible with UK Expo.) 

Here's another: pacing and player agency.

if he had given the players a few minutes of in-game time, and perhaps many minutes terms of table time, to role-play what the PCs did and said upon waking up, then the PCs (and they players) might have compared notes, they might have figured out what knocked them out, and they might have figured out why they were naked. They might have tried various methods to get free of the handcuffs. They might have tried to get out of the van, or they might have tried to drive away in the van, or some of them tried the former while others tried the latter. They might have tried to improvise some clothing from the upholstery of the van. And so on.

Even if the GM ruled that all such attempts failed, at least the players would have narrative control over the pacing of how their characters responded *to the circumstances in which they awoke*, and to *each other*, without the further complication of men with guns telling them to run away.

Bad DM. No biscuit.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
> ******
> What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
> *****
> ...




I read the blog.  It's not freaky.  And the con isn't responsible for the actions of others outside of their venue.

If I tell you that a friend of mine did something creepy, and then you go and post about it on the internet, that's not the con's responsibility.  There's no civil liability issue here.  The con isn't responsible for controlling these people or what they do outside of the con.

You can't on the one hand say the con shouldn't encourage punishment outside of their venue, and then on the other hand say that the con should be responsible for what people do outside of their venue.

Thirdly, the "freaky blog" points out these are "people" not folks in charge of the con.  The con didn't rely on bad information, it HAD good information.  It was _other people _who had bad information and ran with it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2019)

If the con, it’s agents or employees released incorrect info regarding something like this, they _might_ be civilly liable.  If it was other attendees or anyone not associated with the con in an official administrative or logistical (security) position, then they’re not, barring special circumstances.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.




Yes, *if* the con uses bad information, and then publicly announces an incorrect conclusion, yes they are at some risk of liability.

But, _that's huge IF_.  That isn't what happened here.  This is a hypothetical boogeyman of a scenario.

Upthread I mentioned, as does the blog post, *the con investigates* when there's a reported issue.  They don't take word on the internet at face value - they go and talk to people who were present at the time. 

So, really, stop worrying about the convention doing something wrong based on bad information.  They double check things.  They have policies and procedures specifically to prevent them from doing what you are worried about here.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2019)

Matthew Tyler-Jones said:


> John Dodd, in charge of RPGs at UKGE, and other expos, and the investigator in this case, has written this Blog Post, I hope the last word on the matter:
> http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html




This needs to be read by everyone and disseminated as widely as possible.

This is 100% how a con should react and deal with this sort of situation.  Well done them.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> You are firing a dude for something which did not happen at his place of work, did not involve his work business. Sorry Mr. Hussar here is box of stuff, the bobby will walk you to personel to pick up your last paycheck. The Boss saw you moon the winning side at last night's Super bowl.  There is a reason some places do not allow a morality clause in your employment contract/ hr polices.




What are you talking about?  I'm talking about what actually happened.  GM at a con went totally off the rails and got fired from being a GM at the con.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
> ******
> What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
> *****
> ...




If that happens, that con might have something to answer for. But why are you going on about this? It’s completely irrelevant. No con has incorrectly banned a GM for something he didn’t do and slander his name.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> Doh. I saying it is worst now.




You're saying that a dozen posts which get Kevin Rolfe's name wrong, are worse than the Hollywood blacklists resulting from McCarthy's Red Scare?

That's a bold, unconventional position. We might even call it... edgy.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 9, 2019)

Interview with one of the players here.

Player's description of what happened:



> Well, the incident happened about 3/4 of the way through the game. Not at the beginning. We had had a good 2 hours of being silly and fun and getting to know our characters and the others at the table. We were joking and laughing then the GM told us we blacked out, had awoken in the a dark van naked and handcuffed to each other. He told us our arses were sore because we had been raped for many many hours. Then he introduced our rapists, who weren’t even part of the story (not that that would have made it better or anything). They then told us they wanted to see us run, that they would give us 10 mins before catching up to us and raping us again and again. If not they would shoot us in the head. So would we prefer being murdered or raped?
> 
> After that he told us he enjoyed seeing the shocked looks on all our faces. That was why he did it.
> 
> The game was set as 18+ the premise was that we were meant to be “Essex Boys” in the 90s out on a holiday in Ibiza and things were going to “get messy”. Now, I grew up in the 90s in Essex and went to school with the boys the game synopsis was referring to. When we would say “things are going to get messy” we meant someone would drink too much and wander off into trouble. That’s what we took it to mean when we signed up. The game is about robots and science mysteries. We thought maybe some Austin Powers Fem-bot types would try to seduce us etc… There were absolutely no warns that he was about to turn the tables on us and do what he did.


----------



## jasper (Jun 9, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> No, we have 12 uses of the wrong name. There is nothing so far that sts they named other GMs. It could have been typos, incomplete names or anything.
> 
> This conclusion seemed driven by agenda not derived from what was said.




hhahahhha Swung and a miss. Strike three. Boy I say Boy You are way out in the tall grass with that conclusion.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> hhahahhha Swung and a miss. Strike three. Boy I say Boy You are way out in the tall grass with that conclusion.



Oh well.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2019)

jasper said:


> hhahahhha Swung and a miss. Strike three. Boy I say Boy You are way out in the tall grass with that conclusion.





We're going to need you to show more respect for the other posters in the thread, even if you disagree with them.

If you find you can't do that, please stop posting in the thread.  

And in case anyone might forget - this goes for everyone.  Treat each other well, or please walk away until you can.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2019)

Hrm, so, exactly how much evidence is needed here?  We have one of the players directly contradicting the GM's story.  The Con says that it investigated and found evidence of wrong doing as well as evidence that a game company might have had a hand in what was going on in order to drive publicity for their game.  

So, at what point is is acceptable for cons to say, "Hey, we don't want this guy running games at our cons?"  At what point is this not just "internet rage" and actually becomes something actionable?

It's funny in a not ha ha way that every time these sorts of things come up, whether it's sexual harassment or whatnot, there's been a pretty strong body of evidence of wrong doing (up to including admissions of wrong doing) but there always seems to be a branch of the fandom who will forgive anything, sweep anything under the carpet, all in the name of "protecting the innocent".  It's baffling to me how many hoops folks are willing to jump through before they'll admit that from time to time at least, people do bad things and it's acceptable for the broader society to censure that member.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 10, 2019)

What if the DM was being mind-controlled by an insidious yet unnamed regime for the purposes of sowing dissent for political reasons?

Or what if the the DM wasn’t who we think it was, but his hitherto unknown evil twin, trying to discredit his brother as part of a scheme to inherit all of their mysterious father’s wealth?

I mean, really, ALL possibilities should be fully investigated before accepting the victims’ testimony.


----------



## mythago (Jun 10, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation.




It's not true rehabilitation when it comes with a sense of entitlement. 

Sometimes the price of crummy behavior is that there are consequences for bad behavior - like having to earn back trust over time. Or even people choosing to decide they don't want to risk being on the receiving end of that crummy behavior again.

As long as we're talking about things that piss us off, I'm very, very tired of the Geek Social Fallacy terror of exclusion and the child-bully's "geez, I _said_ I was _sorry_, okay?!" being substituted for people owning their screw-ups and genuinely trying to earn back trust somewhere other than on the backs of the people they hurt.

There are people I've been a jerk to over the course of my life who've forgiven me, and that's great. There are other people who have decided that there are about seven billion other people in the world and they don't need to spend time with me, necessarily. And that's their right. Being not-a-jerk is something I'm supposed to do on my own, not because other people owe me forgiveness or because some people get into outrage-mob posting on Tumblr.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 10, 2019)

mythago said:


> I'm very, very tired of the Geek Social Fallacy terror of exclusion and the child-bully's "geez, I _said_ I was _sorry_, okay?!" being substituted for people owning their screw-ups and genuinely trying to earn back trust somewhere other than on the backs of the people they hurt.




Thank you for mentioning the Geek Social Fallacy terror of exclusion. You beat me to it! For those who'd like a full explanation of the concept, try this link: http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

There are some posts which examine the interaction of the GSF, with the "missing stair" concept - that is, the analogy between "oh, there's a missing stair on the back staircase, you just need to step over it" versus "oh, Bob doesn't respect personal boundaries, so you just need to work around that when you're talking with Bob". The literal missing stair, and Bob, are both especially hazardous to people who didn't get the memo. Newcomers show up, they go to the back staircase for a smoke break (or just a fresh air break), and that's where Bob tends to buttonhole newcomers... it's odd, how often Bob's conversations with young female newcomers, happen on those stairs, without anyone else around to corroborate either side of the resulting "he said, she said" dispute.

A passage from one of those pieces:
"On top of this, our good friend recently pointed out a Missing Stair in this friendgroup. Missing Stair has made a few people uncomfortable, and, who knows, may be driving away others. But we just know a couple of anecdotes, and while Partner admits Missing Stair is a jerk, he doesn’t know where he should draw the line. Because inclusivity. And Missing Stair hasn’t done anything egregious and maybe a few people just don’t like him. Partner isn’t comfortable disinviting _anyone_, much less this specific Missing Stair, because he knows how it feels to be uninvited and it’s evil and horrible."

IMO booting Bob from parties, and booting Kevin Rolfe from running games at UK Expo, are unpleasant, but they are a far lesser evil, a necessary evil, compared to the alternative: keeping Bob on your party invitation list, and keeping Kevin Rolfe on your GM list, *knowing the consequences to others, and especially the consequences for newcomers*. Particularly for newcomers with a reasonable concern about how welcome they are, and how easily they could lose their welcome by "rocking the boat". (If you think I'm referring to venues with an good long-term track record of welcoming straight white men, and a mixed record at welcoming anyone else - then yes, you're right, I am; but that's a point which goes beyond the assertions of GSF article and beyond the assertions of the original Missing Stair article by Cliff Pervocracy.)



Hussar said:


> there always seems to be a branch of the fandom who will forgive anything, sweep anything under the carpet, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". It's baffling to me how many hoops folks are willing to jump through before they'll admit that from time to time at least, people do bad things and it's acceptable for the broader society to censure that member.




IMO these are closely related points. I speculate - without concrete evidence - that those who jump most eagerly to Rolfe's defense, are circling the wagons, to protect someone they see as "one of their own", to prevent the precedent of *anyone* in TRPG (or comic fandom, or computer gaming) ever holding *anyone* accountable for any unpleasant behavior which falls short of actual criminal offense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2019)

I am friends with a known missing stair...and I have to say, I haven’t seen him in more than a year, at least in part because _I’ve_ finally gotten fed up with his behaviors.  I’bpve been around a lot of jerks, some of whom are quite charming and worth the effort to associate with.  _Especially _when you get past their Wall of Jerk.

My friend?  Not as much as I once believed.  The first time I noticed it _fully_ was when his own _younger_ brother kicked him off of our bowling team.  It snowballed from there over the years.

I know he can be a good human.  I’ve seen his empathic side up close. But it comes in very small doses.


----------



## Michele (Jun 10, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> This is the worst take.
> 
> Start with the basics; as soon as you start comparing "Not being allowed to DM at a convention" with slavery and human sacrifice (?!) something has gone terribly wrong.




If the point of social ostracism is that it's good because it's old, then verifying whether this claim is true by comparing it to other old stuff is nothing shocking.
You'd need to make a better point for ostracism to be good, other than it being old.



> Mary tells me that the reason she is divorcing Stan is because Stan gave her an STD that he got on a business trip to Thailand. So I shun Stan, because, dude. Does Stan get due process? Nope.




Several problems here.
The first is, as mentioned by me upthread, that it is one thing doing this with people you know, as, in your example, Mary and Stan. Since you know them, you'll be able to assess every factor, including the reliability of Mary and the likelihood of Stan doing that thing. But here we're not talking about people you directly know. We're not talking about villagers in a small village, where everyone knows everybody and secrets are difficult to keep. We're talking about you taking decisions on the "word" of someone you don't know, about someone you don't know.

Secondly, imagine indeed that it is Stan who is your friend since childhood, and Mary his wife you don't know all that well. Wouldn't you talk with Stan before terminating your friendship? I would.

Also, I find it surprising that at this time in the history of the Internet, in which everyone is well aware of the dangers of fake news, there is no thought spent, with regard to this practice, as to the possibility that these phenomena get manipulated. Nor is this a "new" development. I'm sure you'll dispense me from providing the historical examples.

And finally, you're winning easily by choosing actions and behaviors we can all easily agree are deplorable. The thing with social ostracism is that it's driven by the majority - or, even, by the loudest minority, deciding what is right and what is wrong. And neither are always right.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jun 10, 2019)

I understand that some of these concepts are difficult for people to grasp...

... but unless we're talking about criminal penalties, there's no reason to talk about "due process". The very concept of due process is based on the tremendous amount of harm the State can inflict compared to an annual gaming convention.

And unless the poor, suffering... alleged sex pest... has been hanged by the neck until dead, dead, _dead_ comparing his plight to that of European witches and freed Blacks in the American South is _really distasteful_.

I mean... let's all of us take a mental accounting of the various social activities we engage in, and the organizations that _organize_ them.

Let's take for granted that his side of the story was 100% legit. According to his version of events... is there any organization you work with that wouldn't cut you loose if you made the same mistake? If you told that story to your clients while trying to close a contract? If you shared it with your pastor and his family at a church picnic?

There were no children present at the table, but there were children at the con. Would anyone worried about due process for this DM actually want him to be running games at a convention you brought your children to? Would you want him running a game for them?

I think there should be a process to allow him back into the Expo, and the other cons he's banned from-- as I mentioned earlier-- but for now, the _absolute_ best and necessary action is an immediate and indefinite ban. It frankly _baffles_ me that there is any single person (except perhaps himself) that is seriously arguing otherwise.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 10, 2019)

Michele said:


> Also, I find it surprising that at this time in the history of the Internet, in which everyone is well aware of the dangers of fake news, there is no thought spent, with regard to this practice, as to the possibility that these phenomena get manipulated. Nor is this a "new" development. I'm sure you'll dispense me from providing the historical examples.
> 
> And finally, you're winning easily by choosing actions and behaviors we can all easily agree are deplorable. The thing with social ostracism is that it's driven by the majority - or, even, by the loudest minority, deciding what is right and what is wrong. And neither are always right.




My thoughts on this are the game sounds like a very odd thing to run at a con. That said the two news reports I saw on it, looked very poorly handled (like they were primarily relying on a handful of tweets and not investigating the matter and interviewing everyone they could who was involved). I think Cons can do what they want, and if they think he is a problem GM, they can remove him. Not having been there, not really going to cons myself, and not knowing anyone involved, I don't really see how I can get much of a window into what happened beyond some gut reactions. It looks like he could have been a jerk or it could have been a misunderstanding. 

I do think there is a danger in public shaming, and in allowing our opinions of events to be driven by large numbers of people quickly and urgently forming opinions online. I don't think I have developed a very strong opinion on this event myself yet, and I probably won't unless it becomes immediately relevant to me. But I do think people would be wise in these moments to take some time, and not feel like they have to form a judgment right away. Especially those of us who are not immediately involved and have no real actual say in the matter. 

I have seen mention of the geek social fallacies. This is really besides the topic, but I have never felt particularly comfortable with how that gets handled by people in the gaming community. There is truth to the idea that you shouldn't let people just do whatever they want and not say anything. At the same time, a lot of times it seems like it gets used as a justification for cruelty. And I think geeks in general have a hard time striking a balance between over and undereaction. 

Generally I am pretty uneasy about a lot of the reactions and movements I've seen in gaming lately. It has really lessened my interest in the community and caused me to step further away from it. I think we would all benefit from getting less caught up in the latest controversy and being a little slower to react, spend more time thinking through what we are seeing before reaching a judgement. 

I do get this isn't a criminal trial or anything. But these kinds of storms also do have very real impacts on peoples lives, and at the end of the day everyone involved is real human being. This person may have done something wrong. They may also have been misunderstood or very badly read the temperature of the room (and it is also possible people playing overeacted or misjudged). I think the people best positioned to deal with it are those present at the con. The further away you get from that, especially as the event becomes a proxy for other issues in the gaming community, I think the harder it becomes to assess.


----------



## Catulle (Jun 10, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> Let's take for granted that his side of the story was 100% legit. According to his version of events... is there any organization you work with that wouldn't cut you loose if you made the same mistake? If you told that story to your clients while trying to close a contract? If you shared it with your pastor and his family at a church picnic?




By this point, I'm pretty comfortable taking away the impression that the GM has tripped over his own concatenation of lies (what he did, what was said, that a recording existed that totally exonerated him you guys) to the point that muddying the water is the very best he can hope to do now, and this confirms UKGE (and the wider con circuit) being best shot of him.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 10, 2019)

Michele said:


> If the point of social ostracism is that it's good because it's old, then verifying whether this claim is true by comparing it to other old stuff is nothing shocking.
> You'd need to make a better point for ostracism to be good, other than it being old.



You've been running with this made up mockery of what I wrote since you first responded to me and it precisely why I didn't continue to engage with you back there.  Because the problem I'm having with you is that you're assuming you know what I wrote without actually reading the words I typed into my post.

My argument was that social shaming was not a new development.  Not that it was inherently good or inherently bad.  Only that a lot of folks cry wolf that the internet and social media have developed some kind of new social WMD and they really haven't.  The system may be more wide-spread than before and faster, but it's still the same system.  We haven't created some kind of new monster or let some proverbial genie out of the bottle.  

I'm not going to dig back through the thread and quote myself to prove it, that's on you, especially since you didn't bother to read it in the first place I suspect you'd not read it a second time anyway.


----------



## ajevans (Jun 10, 2019)

jasper said:


> Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
> ******
> What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
> *****
> ...




I think what happened with that was the following:

1.  Twitter describes incident in a Tales from the Flood game, not naming GM. 
2.  UK Expo bans GM, but doesn't name him, and then in the background deletes all his games off the system.
3.  People go on the UKGE website, search the Tales from the Flood - it brings up the other GM running and they think it must be him as that's the only game that's listed for Tales from the Flood.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 10, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Jun 10, 2019)

So, you know that old saw about how when people see the phrase "political correctness" and immediately replace it in their minds with "treating others with respect"?

I've started doing this similar thing where I replace phrases like "mob mentality" and "internet outrage" with "social accountability" and it really brings the overblown hysterics into full view (which is fairly ironic, now that I think about)


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 10, 2019)

Michele said:


> If the point of social ostracism is that it's good because it's old, then verifying whether this claim is true by comparing it to other old stuff is nothing shocking.
> You'd need to make a better point for ostracism to be good, other than it being old.
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly, I dont see this world you see where "there is no thought spent, with regard to this practice, as to the possibility that these phenomena get manipulated. "

Seems to me in the case in question there was a lot more than just fake news then mob rage pillary going on. 

If one wants to take the pulpit about the dangers of fake news, mob rule, knee jerk justice etc etc etc it seems odd to do so for a case where there was an investigation and then actions taken. 

Tagging this agenda to cases where it seems to really not apply seems to serve yo diminish the actual case being discussed *and* the cases when the fake-rage is an issue.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 10, 2019)

Theres a lot of talk about how we should be careful about jumping to conclusions based on second hand accounts.

I think there IS a danger in leaning too hard into the 'Internet Outrage Machine' and simply automatically believing anything negative said about someone else. I think that lives CAN be ruined due to false accusations that get picked up by social media and spread like wildfire.

However, this is not one of those cases. This is not one of those cases where the facts aren't in full view for all to see. I saw the initial news article. I read the report from the man investigating what happened. I even watched/read the accused GM's defense. This isn't a case of me jumping on a band wagon. I weighed the reports available and I made a decision on whom I consider to be telling the truth in this situation.

Also, as has been mentioned before, this isnt a case where someone needs a full trial. The burden of proof and other legal rights simply do not apply. I am free, as is everyone, to make their own judgments on the situation. I think the Con did EXACTLY the right thing. He was removed and banned. It heartens me that they took the issue seriously and addressed the problem swiftly.

Why are we arguing hypotheticals here? Yes. I agree with you: People SHOULD take a moment to get the facts before they rush to judgment. Thats the thing though: *WE DID*. What more do you want here? This is an example of Social Shaming doing its job: Making people aware of a bad actor and removing them from the ability to harm others in public venues.


----------



## robus (Jun 10, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> I don't understand the objection to shaming people for bad actions.  Society has been founded on this principle for thousands of years.  Word gets out that you're doing something nasty and then other people remove you from their social circles.  If at some point down the road you clean up your act, you might be able to rejoin.  THIS IS NOT NEW.  It's not a "new climate" or a "new culture", this is how humans function.  "Social media" just makes it easier for humans to be the _social_ creatures they naturally are.




My theory on this is because it’s the combination of two major forces: male supremacy and social media amplification. Male supremacy has been taken for granted, basically forever, and now there is more pushback on that (pushback that started a while back but has been gathering steam now that stories are easier to share via social media). Social media also makes it possible to shame people on levels never before seen, it is a second’s effort to learn some dirt on a stranger and join a pile on.

We’re in uncharted waters and things are going to get uncertain for a while, I’m hopeful the culture will produce new charts to navigate them because the old ones definitely needed to be thrown out.

I’m not certain the social media companies have our best interests at heart though, they want money and unfettered desire for that has wrought havoc for a few centuries now.


----------



## robus (Jun 10, 2019)

Gradine said:


> So, you know that old saw about how when people see the phrase "political correctness" and immediately replace it in their minds with "treating others with respect"?




I’m not aware of that old saw. I thought “political correctness” was invented to dismiss people’s efforts to “treat people with respect”?! That’s how it seemed in the 90s at least...


----------



## mrm1138 (Jun 11, 2019)

robus said:


> I’m not aware of that old saw. I thought “political correctness” was invented to dismiss people’s efforts to “treat people with respect”?! That’s how it seemed in the 90s at least...




It came from a Neil Gaiman Tumblr post.

https://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading-a-book-about-interjections-oddly


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

robus said:


> I’m not aware of that old saw. I thought “political correctness” was invented to dismiss people’s efforts to “treat people with respect”?! That’s how it seemed in the 90s at least...




Yeah, that's mostly the point.


----------



## robus (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Yeah, that's mostly the point.



A “whoosh” for me then!


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

robus said:


> I’m not aware of that old saw. I thought “political correctness” was invented to dismiss people’s efforts to “treat people with respect”?! That’s how it seemed in the 90s at least...




Usage of that term has varied, over time. George Orwell was socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and after his service in the Spanish Civil War, anti-Stalinist. He used the term "politically correct" to mean something like this: "the view which the Party has declared as orthodoxy, regardless of its objective truth". Classic example: The Party shows Winston Smith four lights, but the "politically correct" count is five... and the Party uses harsh methods, motivating Smith to see five lights. Another old-school example: Lysenkoist agriculture, which was politically correct according to Stalin, and thus according to the Party, but which in practice resulted in disastrously low crop production.

Whether those who *currently* toss the term around most readily, are mainly acting in the service of objective reality, or whether they're more often aligned with ideological rather than strictly factual declarations, is a political question, and there are limits to engaging political topics in an EN World forum.

Meanwhile, a mod has (if I understand the mod's point accurately) warned against excessive speculation on situations other than the one at hand, that is, the game at UK Expo, the BBC's article about that game, and that actual convention's response to that actual incident. I have my opinions on the use of Twitter during *that particular incident*. Others may hold other opinions.


----------



## mythago (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> My thoughts on this are the game sounds like a very odd thing to run at a con. That said the two news reports I saw on it, looked very poorly handled (like they were primarily relying on a handful of tweets and not investigating the matter and interviewing everyone they could who was involved).




Someone has already linked to a blog post by one of the con organizers, who explained exactly what they did, who they talked to, and why they took the actions (banning him from the con) that they did. And he did not name the person or encourage anyone to shame or shun him.

Where on earth are you getting this idea that it was 'very poorly handled'? Is this the thing where we assume exclusion is probably bad and mean, and therefore anything that resulted in exclusion must have been a flawed process?

Look, kindergartners can grasp the concept of "If you are mean to the other kids, they won't want to play with you anymore". We as adult gamers should be able to understand that too. And we should also be able to expend a little emotional energy on worrying about the aftermath for the people who were _on the receiving end of the crummy behavior_, instead of focusing solely on whether the dude who experienced the natural consequences of being a jackwagon got a feelings-booboo.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

mythago said:


> Someone has already linked to a blog post by one of the con organizers, who explained exactly what they did, who they talked to, and why they took the actions (banning him from the con) that they did. And he did not name the person or encourage anyone to shame or shun him.
> 
> Where on earth are you getting this idea that it was 'very poorly handled'? Is this the thing where we assume exclusion is probably bad and mean, and therefore anything that resulted in exclusion must have been a flawed process?
> 
> Look, kindergartners can grasp the concept of "If you are mean to the other kids, they won't want to play with you anymore". We as adult gamers should be able to understand that too. And we should also be able to expend a little emotional energy on worrying about the aftermath for the people who were _on the receiving end of the crummy behavior_, instead of focusing solely on whether the dude who experienced the natural consequences of being a jackwagon got a feelings-booboo.




I was saying the news coverage was poorly handled in my view


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I was saying the news coverage was poorly handled in my view




Let's be fair here.  How much effort are you actually going to expend on a news story where a guy gets booted out of a gaming convention?  Sure, they may not have the details exactly right, but, by and large, they've got the gist - guy goes way beyond the pale when running a game, players complain on Twitter, guy gets expelled from Con.  That's pretty much the long and the short of the story.

Which, frankly, is as it should be.  There's no reason for extended drama or hand wringing or anything like that.  We've got the con doing due diligence, we've got at least one player flatly contradicting the GM in question, and we've got the results - the GM is banned from the con and won't be running games some other cons as well.

What more is expected here?  Isn't this pretty much textbook for how this should work?

Like I said earlier, it's baffling how much hand wringing folks are willing to do in order to "protect" us from "the mob mentality".  Yet, of the past four or five examples that have come up on En World over the past couple of years, every single one of them have been pretty much open and shut issues that were handled.  Where are these multiple examples where the "mob mentality" ruined some GM?  Where are the actual examples, not hypotheticals, but actual, recorded examples where the "mob mentality" harmed an innocent victim?

Because I keep seeing how "fake news" and "mob mentality" and whatnot keeps getting brought up again and again as reasons we have to be extra careful, yet, I'm still waiting for an actual example.  If it's so dangerous that the "mob mentality" is witch hunting innocent people all the time, then, it should be pretty easy to come up with a shopping list of examples.  Yet, those examples remain conspicuously absent while verifiable examples of wrong doing keep being brought up again and again and again.

At what point do we start accepting that people do bad things in social situations and it's okay to boot those bad actors from our hobby?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Like I said earlier, it's baffling how much hand wringing folks are willing to do in order to "protect" us from "the mob mentality".  Yet, of the past four or five examples that have come up on En World over the past couple of years, every single one of them have been pretty much open and shut issues that were handled.  Where are these multiple examples where the "mob mentality" ruined some GM?  Where are the actual examples, not hypotheticals, but actual, recorded examples where the "mob mentality" harmed an innocent victim?
> 
> Because I keep seeing how "fake news" and "mob mentality" and whatnot keeps getting brought up again and again as reasons we have to be extra careful, yet, I'm still waiting for an actual example.  If it's so dangerous that the "mob mentality" is witch hunting innocent people all the time, then, it should be pretty easy to come up with a shopping list of examples.  Yet, those examples remain conspicuously absent while verifiable examples of wrong doing keep being brought up again and again and again.




It may not be the gaming community, but there's always the Central Park 5 (recently in the news again thanks to documentaries). We certainly don't want the mob mentality and fake news to reach that point too often.

Within the community, I'd have a hard time saying the Satanic Panic of the 1980s wasn't driven by mob mentality. Think of the kind of power it would have via social media. I know people who were banned from participating in the hobby by their parents as a result.

There's also evidence that people are deliberately weaponizing social media mobs with varying degrees of success. It may have worked in getting conventions to back off honoring Bill Webb and Frank Mentzer (I still can't figure out why Tim Kask was included in at least one of those social media campaigns). But it also derailed a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel for a while by convincing Disney to fire James Gunn (at least for a while). Meanwhile, people like Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day get doxxed.

So, yeah, mob mentality has been a problem, is a problem, and will be a problem and it shouldn't be brushed off as necessarily harmless to innocent people just because it sometimes takes down people who deserve it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2019)

> So, yeah, mob mentality has been a problem, is a problem, and will be a problem and it shouldn't be brushed off as necessarily harmless to innocent people just because it sometimes takes down people who deserve it.




While simultaneously, a tool that has proven efficacious should not be summarily dismissed because some innocent people get damaged by it on occasion.  As with many things in life, nothing is perfect- it’s a balancing act.

And like many balancing acts, we have tools to fend off, mitigate, and _somewhat_ rectify the situation when things go wrong..._if_ people choose to abide by them.  There are statistical analyses that tell us the approximate rates of false accusations across a broad assortment of offenses, which _should_ guide our responses to reports of wrongdoing.  There are civil and criminal laws punishing those who deliberately or recklessly make false accusations, meaning they could not only do time, they could face stiff financial penalties as well.

To use one offered example, the Central Park 5 were eventually exonerated _and_ awarded a multimillion dollar settlement.  And, as I recall, a second one as well as more facts came forward.  (OTOH, the person who took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for their execution has never apologized.)

Were they made whole?  Could they return to their previous normal lives?  Of course not.  The bell, rung, cannot be unrung.  But they were given the apology (most) of society could give them.  They are free to find their new normal, if they can.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> But it also derailed a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel for a while by convincing Disney to fire James Gunn (at least for a while). Meanwhile, people like Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day get doxxed.




Whether it's more important to hold James Gunn accountable for his actions, or whether it's more important that GoG 3 get produced ASAP, is a matter of opinion. Gunn took the opportunity to step up, admit that he'd acted (in his past) without proper regard for consequences to others, and establish that he was not *continuing* to act that way. Is that moral example, to the SFF community and to humanity at large, worth a delay of a year or two, on the third movie in a series? I say, yes it is. The delay is unfortunate for those who die during the interval, and thus will never get to see GoG3... but sometimes the needs of the many override the needs of the few. (The consequence for Gunn, was that he hopped over to Marvel and wrote "Suicide Squad 2". He's also said that the experience was, in the long run, good for him.)

In any case, the accusations against James Gunn are not *false*. We can disagree on the scale of what consequences are proportional to his actions. Either of us can urge Disney, and encourage others to urge Disney, to act according to our preferred scale of consequences. But Gunn himself says that he wrote messages which were "failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative". Unlike Mentzer, Gunn hasn't claimed that his account was hacked.

Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day are also not cases of false accusation. They really did oppose Gamergate. I happen to stand with them, so I see *any* action against them as unjust.. an unjust mob attacked them for *calling out its injustice* ...but there's no question of whether anyone *falsely* claimed that they opposed Gamergate.

So where's the *false accusation* of someone
(a) in gaming:
(b) using a position of status (eg Mentzer's role in the industry, or Rolfe's role as GM and as Room Captain)
(c) in the service of their personal agenda (from Mentzer's desire for Jessica Price, to Rolfe's desire to see shock on his player's faces)
(d) in a way which "punches down".


----------



## LordEntrails (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ...  That's pretty much the long and the short of the story.
> 
> Which, frankly, is as it should be.  There's no reason for extended drama or hand wringing or anything like that.  We've got the con doing due diligence, we've got at least one player flatly contradicting the GM in question, and we've got the results - the GM is banned from the con and won't be running games some other cons as well.
> 
> What more is expected here?  Isn't this pretty much textbook for how this should work?




Nothing. And that's how it should be. Unfortunately, this thread is now on page 27. Though I am please to say I have read nothing between paged 3-26 (or so) and don't plan on wasting more time on it. I guess maybe if it makes it another 25 pages I will chime in to repeat my dismay.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

LordEntrails said:


> I am please to say I have read nothing between paged 3-26 (or so) and don't plan on wasting more time on it. I guess maybe if it makes it another 25 pages I will chime in to repeat my dismay.




That's a bold, unconventional position. We might even call it... edgy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Let's be fair here.  How much effort are you actually going to expend on a news story where a guy gets booted out of a gaming convention?  Sure, they may not have the details exactly right, but, by and large, they've got the gist - guy goes way beyond the pale when running a game, players complain on Twitter, guy gets expelled from Con.  That's pretty much the long and the short of the story.




Getting details right is largely what it is about though. I used to get in great trouble if I got lazy and some minor fact was slightly off. I used to be a freelance reporter, and even on a story like that, I was always expected to expend the same amount of effort and due my due diligence contacting sources and verifying. It isn't unique to this story but I am just a bit surprised how often I see news articles rely on things like twitter. And I definitely would have been expected to contact the person at the center of the story. And this was the BBC so I expected more.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Getting details right is largely what it is about though. I used to get in great trouble if I got lazy and some minor fact was slightly off.






Bedrockgames said:


> I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.




Hold yourself to that standard of "details matter"; read exact phrasing, in context; and THEN tell us exactly where you see which gamers defending 'mob mentality', on what basis.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.




No, what you are seeing is folks looking for the "mob mentality" and not seeing any in this case.  And other folks defending the GM in question from the hypothetical mob this out to get him.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, what you are seeing is folks looking for the "mob mentality" and not seeing any in this case.  And other folks defending the GM in question from the hypothetical mob this out to get him.




What I see is a lot of people online calling for this person to be banned, and calling for large changes to how the hobby functions, over a single incident. One where the game was marked mature. Like I said, the con can do what it wants. If they feel he crossed a line, then by all means, that is their judgment. But I do think is a mob thing going on here (and many posters are freely talking about the value of public shaming in cases like this). I am not so sure. I do think that this is going to have an impact on the life of the GM in question. It is one thing to say a person crossed the line at a con and should be removed, but should a global ban be in effect? And again, the game was marked mature. That isn't the kind of game I would want to play, and I am a bit unclear if the tone of it was meant to be serious and disturbing, or if it was meant to be more in the style of the hang over movies. But if I signed up for a mature session, in the back of my mind, I would see this kind of adolescent humor/gross-out/edgy stuff might or even objectionable content, might crop up. Most likely I'd just excuse myself from the game. Again, not my cup of tea, but I do think there is a powerful moral consensus against this one individual forming in the game community and I don't know if it is such a good thing that this is happening.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Hold yourself to that standard of "details matter"; read exact phrasing, in context; and THEN tell us exactly where you see which gamers defending 'mob mentality', on what basis.




Fair enough, I missed the quotations (though in fairness I am not writing a news article ). But, and not picking on Danny here because I find him to be one of the most reasonable posters in these discussions, but here is one example that to me seems to be defending mob mentality (it was in response to a poster arguing that public shaming is a problem):



Dannyalcatraz said:


> While simultaneously, a tool that has proven efficacious should not be summarily dismissed because some innocent people get damaged by it on occasion. As with many things in life, nothing is perfect- it’s a balancing act.




There have definitely been defenses of shunning and shaming, and using the power of social media to do so here I think. And I do think it isn't inaccurate to call this reaction an internet mob reaction. It is occurring on threads like this, facebook, all over twitter, on blogs and youtube channels. We have painted a picture of this person based on one session, which could have been anything from a misjudgment on his part, to blatantly offensive GMing, to an over-reaction on the part of the players. I honestly have a very hard time assessing it not having been there myself, because this is a case where how it was delivered and the tone would have mattered a great deal. Also the vibe of the tables would have mattered too.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I see is a lot of people online calling for this person to be banned, and calling for large changes to how the hobby functions, over a single incident. One where the game was marked mature. Like I said, the con can do what it wants. If they feel he crossed a line, then by all means, that is their judgment. But I do think is a mob thing going on here (and many posters are freely talking about the value of public shaming in cases like this). I am not so sure. I do think that this is going to have an impact on the life of the GM in question. It is one thing to say a person crossed the line at a con and should be removed, but should a global ban be in effect? And again, the game was marked mature. That isn't the kind of game I would want to play, and I am a bit unclear if the tone of it was meant to be serious and disturbing, or if it was meant to be more in the style of the hang over movies. But if I signed up for a mature session, in the back of my mind, I would see this kind of adolescent humor/gross-out/edgy stuff might or even objectionable content, might crop up. Most likely I'd just excuse myself from the game. Again, not my cup of tea, but I do think there is a powerful moral consensus against this one individual forming in the game community and I don't know if it is such a good thing that this is happening.




Oh, please.  

1.  What kind of impact is this having on the life of the GM?  He can't run games at conventions?  Oh, noes, the horrors and despair.  Again, if I was at a job and I screwed up on this kind of level, I'd get fired from my job and I wouldn't be allowed to work at that company any more.  Is that "mob mentality"?  And, if it's just "Oh, well, he can't run at this con _this _year, but, next year it's fine" how is that supposed to work?

2.  There's a pretty significant diffference between "mature" (and the actual write up for the game didn't even hint that this was a possibility) and "I'm going to rape your characters and there's nothing you can do about it just so I can see your reactions and apparently because some gaming company put me up to it."

If there is a strong moral consensus against this individual forming, bloody FANTASTIC.  It's about time we stop treating this sort of thing as "oh, well, it's a shame, tut tut, there there" and, as a fandom stand up and say in no uncertain terms, "Buddy, you're out of here.  We don't want you in our hobby".   

This is what I'm talking about.  The con organizer says that the GM went way over the line.  The players COMPLAINED about the GM going way over the line and we're now supposed to just waggle our fingers and stroke our beards?  Gimme a break.  No.  No more.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

mythago said:


> Look, kindergartners can grasp the concept of "If you are mean to the other kids, they won't want to play with you anymore". We as adult gamers should be able to understand that too. And we should also be able to expend a little emotional energy on worrying about the aftermath for the people who were _on the receiving end of the crummy behavior_, instead of focusing solely on whether the dude who experienced the natural consequences of being a jackwagon got a feelings-booboo.




What I see in a lot of these incidents is people using another persons perceived bad behavior as an excuse for cruelty. Just look at the language of your paragraph. Was he being mean? I didn't get that impression. I got the impression he may have been clueless or been behaving like a bit of an ass trying to push boundaries. But I can also see a scenario here where this is just a misguided attempt at humor, or where he failed to read the room. That the game was marked Mature makes a big difference in my mind. To me it looks like a lot of mature games I've seen, which is it is basically immaturity thinking it is mature (one of my main reasons for not having an interest in a lot of the mature content stuff in RPGs I've encountered. And like I said, Con can do what it wants. That is their call. I am just not so sure about the calls we are seeing to push him out of all cons or push someone out of the hobby over a single game at the con. 

And yes we should be empathetic to peoples concerns at the game table. To me though, that doesn't suggest that once someone has a bad experience, that we can mistreat the person who ran the bad game or behave however we like in the pursuit of rectifying the situation. And I do think we have a responsibility to consider whether it is as black and white as it initially appears (and I am not sure it is at all).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - did you read the blog posting that was linked?  Or did you skip a bunch of pages.  Because, I think that you might be missing a LOT of information here.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I see is a lot of people online calling for this person to be banned, and calling for large changes to how the hobby functions, over a single incident. One where the game was marked mature. Like I said, the con can do what it wants. If they feel he crossed a line, then by all means, that is their judgment. But I do think is a mob thing going on here (and many posters are freely talking about the value of public shaming in cases like this). I am not so sure. I do think that this is going to have an impact on the life of the GM in question. It is one thing to say a person crossed the line at a con and should be removed, but should a global ban be in effect? And again, the game was marked mature. That isn't the kind of game I would want to play, and I am a bit unclear if the tone of it was meant to be serious and disturbing, or if it was meant to be more in the style of the hang over movies. But if I signed up for a mature session, in the back of my mind, I would see this kind of adolescent humor/gross-out/edgy stuff might or even objectionable content, might crop up. Most likely I'd just excuse myself from the game. Again, not my cup of tea, but I do think there is a powerful moral consensus against this one individual forming in the game community and I don't know if it is such a good thing that this is happening.



I have to ask two questions.

 what would it take for you to be sure that a community consensus against allowing a GM at a con after an incident to continue to run games at other cons run by some of the same folks was a good thing? 

Same question also about his role as official room captain folks are told to take issues like this to?

What would be the threshold that you would be comfortable with the choice to say "yeah, nope, let's not let them do this anymore at our public events?"


----------



## Sadras (Jun 11, 2019)

Playing devil's advocate...cause I agree with the ruling of the Con.

Man rapes, man get's charged, man serves time, man is released, man is allowed to date again. 

GM rapes fictional characters at Con, banned from GMing at Con for life. 

What am I missing?


----------



## ajevans (Jun 11, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Playing devil's advocate...cause I agree with the ruling of the Con.
> 
> Man rapes, man get's charged, man serves time, man is released, man is allowed to date again.
> 
> ...




Man is placed on sex offenders register and will be excluded from all sorts of stuff as a result if they demand a DBS check. 

It's a pretty lousy analogy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> @_*Bedrockgames*_ - did you read the blog posting that was linked?  Or did you skip a bunch of pages.  Because, I think that you might be missing a LOT of information here.




Point me a link and I will read it


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I have to ask two questions.
> 
> what would it take for you to be sure that a community consensus against allowing a GM at a con after an incident to continue to run games at other cons run by some of the same folks was a good thing?




Well, generally I think we should not rush to form judgements in these cases. I don't know about you, but it actually takes me a while to puzzle through the morality of events like this, and to think through the different angles. The urgency of the response is one of the things I think will lead to less good outcomes. 

In terms of when I would say it is a good thing? I don't think the internet is particularly well suited to forming those kinds of judgements. Places like twitter tend not to allow for much nuance. Forums tend to be driven by whoever has the best rhetoric, and there is the added factor that online we are all dehumanized by the fact that we are just text and avatars. I think if someone were a real threat to people (was violent or a predator) it would make sense for cons to not allow that person. I think for running a questionable and offensive game, it is different. The cons should make this kind of determination on their own. But like I said, it was marked mature. It isn't like this was totally unexpected. When a game is marked mature, that to me suggests any amount of mature content that can appear in movies, might appear in the game. At the end of the day, I am not very confident in the ability of large groups of people online to for a sound consensus on what consequences a person should suffer for something they did wrong at a con. 



> Same question also about his role as official room captain folks are told to take issues like this to?




Can you rephrase this question? I am not sure what you are asking. 



> What would be the threshold that you would be comfortable with the choice to say "yeah, nope, let's not let them do this anymore at our public events?"




I don't know. It would really have to be taken case by case. But I don't know that we as a community should be making these determinations en masse. I just don't think large groups of people online are the best way to sort out this kind of controversy.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 11, 2019)

ajevans said:


> Man is placed on sex offenders register and will be excluded from all sorts of stuff as a result if they demand a DBS check.
> 
> It's a pretty lousy analogy.




Thanks. Had to google DBS check. Keep on forgetting about criminal record ruining future employment opportunities once out of prison. That's what happens when you don't think things through properly.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Oh, please.
> 
> 1.  What kind of impact is this having on the life of the GM?  He can't run games at conventions?  Oh, noes, the horrors and despair.  Again, if I was at a job and I screwed up on this kind of level, I'd get fired from my job and I wouldn't be allowed to work at that company any more.  Is that "mob mentality"?  And, if it's just "Oh, well, he can't run at this con _this _year, but, next year it's fine" how is that supposed to work?
> ....
> ...




On the one hand you are saying his life is unaffected, on the other you are saying it is good that he is being eliminated from the hobby. Not being able to participate in something you enjoy, is an impact on one's life. 

Also this isn't his job. This is a leisure activity. I don't think the analogy holds well here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> 2.  There's a pretty significant diffference between "mature" (and the actual write up for the game didn't even hint that this was a possibility) and "I'm going to rape your characters and there's nothing you can do about it just so I can see your reactions and apparently because some gaming company put me up to it."
> .




Couple of things. First, as far as I am aware, there was no 'in scene rape'. This was an implied rape because they awakened handcuffed and their bums were sore. This could have been anything from the characters were raped to hangover style humor. 

In terms of maturity content, I think a scene where players awaken in this state is within the boundaries of mature content. Whether that is acceptable content for this con, is another thing entirely. And that is ultimately up to the con to decide. But like I said, I find it adolescent. I don't particularly care for mature games. But if I signed up for a mature game, that is a scenario I wouldn't be surprised to encounter. It probably wouldn't be what I would think most mature games would be. It just wouldn't blind side me.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> and apparently because some gaming company put me up to it."




Sorry I missed the evidence for this, can you provide a link?


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Point me a link and I will read it




I hereby direct you to post #213, in this thread. You can find post #213 on your own, right? Did you skip past it on the way here? If so, then take your allegations of "rushing to judgement without full information", and apply them directly to yourself.

That post includes a link, and it also quotes a player in that game, recounting how Rolfe told the players that the PCs had been "raped for many many hours. Then he introduced our rapists, who weren’t even part of the story (not that that would have made it better or anything). They then told us they wanted to see us run, that they would give us 10 mins before catching up to us and raping us again and again."

I recommend that you not repeat your assertion that this player, and his fellow players in that game, were "over-reacting", because mods have discouraged blaming the victims.

You could try to argue that this player was lying... but that argument would involve ALSO stipulating that John Dodd was lying, in the blog post where he says "My investigation was swift and through" and "In the two days that followed, I spoke to all but one of the people who played in that game".

(An earlier post provided the link for John Dodd's statement. Here it is again: http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html)

Again, if this is news to you: then YOU are the one tossing around accusations - accusations of mob mentality - without basing your accusation on the available information.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Couple of things. First, as far as I am aware, there was no 'in scene rape'. This was an implied rape because they awakened handcuffed and their bums were sore. This could have been anything from the characters were raped to hangover style humor.
> 
> In terms of maturity content, I think a scene where players awaken in this state is within the boundaries of mature content. Whether that is acceptable content for this con, is another thing entirely. And that is ultimately up to the con to decide. But like I said, I find it adolescent. I don't particularly care for mature games. But if I signed up for a mature game, that is a scenario I wouldn't be surprised to encounter. It probably wouldn't be what I would think most mature games would be. It just wouldn't blind side me.




Per at least one of the players, the rape was not ‘implied,’ they were told their characters had been raped and would be either raped again or murdered if they did not escape.

Secondly, the players did not sign up for a ‘mature’ game (and even a ‘mature’ warning wouldn’t have sufficed, IMO). They signed up for an 18+ game, which is not the same thing. 18+ covers a multitude, and is no way sufficient warning for players to expect something as awful as rape in a game. This is especially true of a game of Tales from the Flood. The scenario description did not convey to the people signing up that they were getting into some kind of hard core horror game. Nor did the two and a half hours of gameplay leading up to the rape, which had been light hearted and funny up until that point. The GM pulled this  precisely because he wanted to shock and disgust the players, and guess what: mission accomplished. His reward is never running a game at a con again.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Couple of things. First, as far as I am aware, there was no 'in scene rape'. This was an implied rape because they awakened handcuffed and their bums were sore. This could have been anything from the characters were raped to hangover style humor.




Oh, well in that case we should just excuse the whole thing.

Wait...what century is this?

Oh, my bad, I was so fully immersed in my latest gaming session that I thought we were in the dark ages.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

5ekyu asked: "What would be the threshold that you would be comfortable with the choice to say "yeah, nope, let's not let them do this anymore at our public events?"



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know. It would really have to be taken case by case. But I don't know that we as a community should be making these determinations en masse. I just don't think large groups of people online are the best way to sort out this kind of controversy.




If you cannot name ANYTHING a GM might do, which would result in your approval for John Dodd's decision;

if not even "the GM tells the players that their characters were raped for hours, and then has NPCs with guns announce intent to rape them again" isn't enough for you say more than "I don't know";

if you think that rape of PCs, followed by threat to rape PCs again, needs to be handled "case by case", that cons can't make categorical rules against scenarios with rape of PCs;

then I sure hope you never run a games convention.

I'm glad that John Dodd IS on staff at games conventions.

I would express myself in more heated terms, because I'm rather angry, but this is EN World.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

Heh, irony is a wonderful thing. 

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is complaining that folks are rushing to judgement and we're negatively impacting this guy's life without learning the facts all the while not bothering to actually spend any time learning the facts that are IN THIS THREAD.  That's a whole lot of irony right there.

So, folks, the moral of the story is, actually do a bit of due diligence before cramming your foot in your mouth and looking like a ninny.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 11, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Playing devil's advocate...cause I agree with the ruling of the Con.
> 
> Man rapes, man get's charged, man serves time, man is released, man is allowed to date again.
> 
> ...



This seems less like devils advocate and more like lampooning or charicature.

Whats missing is the host of other negatives involved with serving time. Whats missing is that the gm is not being told he cannot gm again, just cons deciding they dont want him gming at their events.

This is more akin to a retailer they dont want to hire a known thief to do their money deliveries at any of their stores. 

Man, the lengths folks will go for this is amazing.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, generally I think we should not rush to form judgements in these cases. I don't know about you, but it actually takes me a while to puzzle through the morality of events like this, and to think through the different angles. The urgency of the response is one of the things I think will lead to less good outcomes.
> 
> In terms of when I would say it is a good thing? I don't think the internet is particularly well suited to forming those kinds of judgements. Places like twitter tend not to allow for much nuance. Forums tend to be driven by whoever has the best rhetoric, and there is the added factor that online we are all dehumanized by the fact that we are just text and avatars. I think if someone were a real threat to people (was violent or a predator) it would make sense for cons to not allow that person. I think for running a questionable and offensive game, it is different. The cons should make this kind of determination on their own. But like I said, it was marked mature. It isn't like this was totally unexpected. When a game is marked mature, that to me suggests any amount of mature content that can appear in movies, might appear in the game. At the end of the day, I am not very confident in the ability of large groups of people online to for a sound consensus on what consequences a person should suffer for something they did wrong at a con.
> 
> ...



Uhhh... Huh...



So, the only thing really concrete is that since it was posted mature the players  shoulda known better and been expecting sonething like this might be on the menu and just took it in stride, maybe left?

Got it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To use one offered example, the Central Park 5 were eventually exonerated _and_ awarded a multimillion dollar settlement.  And, as I recall, a second one as well as more facts came forward.  (OTOH, the person who took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for their execution has never apologized.)
> 
> Were they made whole?  Could they return to their previous normal lives?  Of course not.  The bell, rung, cannot be unrung.  But they were given the apology (most) of society could give them.  They are free to find their new normal, if they can.




That's partly my point - there's no redress, no proportionality you can extract from the mob. The Central Park 5 were able to obtain some redress because there are mechanisms in place that can allow for that (though even the appellate courts had failed them), specifically, there was some entity they could legitimately sue. We'll see if Frog God Games is successful in the suit they've filed.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Curse you for making me give Xp to a Paladin-positive comment.




I am at peace.  For now I have seen everything.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> (An earlier post provided the link for John Dodd's statement. Here it is again: http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html)
> 
> Again, if this is news to you: then YOU are the one tossing around accusations - accusations of mob mentality - without basing your accusation on the available information.




As long as we're going to refer back to John Dodd's statement - he also pointed out that 12 of the more than 20 people who contacted him about the incident had misidentified the GM in question. Hence his exhortion to determine and work with reliable information rather than internet rumor. This is why the mob process is risky - it's hard to avoid playing a game of telephone as the story moves around, farther and farther from the parties who were directly involved. And the initial report on twitter was very short on detail as it was.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 11, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> This seems less like devils advocate and more like lampooning or charicature.
> 
> Whats missing is the host of other negatives involved with serving time. Whats missing is that the gm is not being told he cannot gm again, just cons deciding they dont want him gming at their events.
> 
> ...




There are no 'lengths' that I'm going through and stop insinuating nonsense. If you bothered to follow through with my discussion  with the poster that replied to me you would have realised I admonished my own thinking.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> just so I can see your reactions and apparently because some gaming company put me up to it.




I'm familiar with the "see your reactions" part, from the post by one of the players.

What's this about a gaming company putting Rolfe up to a stunt? If that has been discussed here in this thread, then I missed it. Is there evidence that James Desborough was in contact with Rolfe *before* UK Expo 2019? I hope that Nils Hintze wasn't involved! Could you please point me at a source?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Uhhh... Huh...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, I am saying glven that it was tagged mature, it makes it a lot more likely this was a case of people going in with differing expectations. It suggests the GM was not trying surprise people with something out of bounds, and more that the GM had a different sense of what was within the boundaries. In terms of the players reactions, I would apply the same level of caution to assessing that as I would to assessing the GM. I wasn't there and so I don't know how things played out in real time. But I can see a case where this is an overreaction (I can also see where it would possibly be an under reaction or an appropriate reaction). But the fact that it was tagged mature, to me is a very important detail.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> I hereby direct you to post #213, in this thread. You can find post #213 on your own, right? Did you skip past it on the way here? If so, then take your allegations of "rushing to judgement without full information", and apply them directly to yourself.
> 
> That post includes a link, and it also quotes a player in that game, recounting how Rolfe told the players that the PCs had been "raped for many many hours. Then he introduced our rapists, who weren’t even part of the story (not that that would have made it better or anything). They then told us they wanted to see us run, that they would give us 10 mins before catching up to us and raping us again and again."
> 
> ...




I will look over this when I get back (I read through it quickly and didn't find the quote you mentioned, but I wasn't doing a detailed read). However, assuming this is the case, it is exactly why I say we shouldn't rush to judgment or make this a matter requiring urgency. If it is the case that we have different accounts of what happened, that makes it more complicated and harder to assess than if all accounts lined up (and accounts can differ for all kinds of reasons, not just because people are lying----people misremember, people miscommunicate, etc). 

I mentioned this on another thread where this came up but, this is over 200 posts. That is probably hours of reading for most people. And most of it isn't vital information like the blog post. That is why I am saying you have to give people time to assess. Also, even once you have all the facts, I think it takes a long time to formulate a sound moral judgement and it isn't something I think we should be rushing.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> No, I am saying glven that it was tagged mature, it makes it a lot more likely this was a case of people going in with differing expectations. It suggests the GM was not trying surprise people with something out of bounds, and more that the GM had a different sense of what was within the boundaries. In terms of the players reactions, I would apply the same level of caution to assessing that as I would to assessing the GM. I wasn't there and so I don't know how things played out in real time. But I can see a case where this is an overreaction (I can also see where it would possibly be an under reaction or an appropriate reaction). But the fact that it was tagged mature, to me is a very important detail.



Since I find myself typing then deleting my own responses, cuz I think what I want to say would violate forum policy, I think that's a good sign I should step away from this thread and leave it to you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> then I sure hope you never run a games convention.




Please stop with these kinds of assumptions. We can disagree about something, take our time differently with something, and be more or less reluctant to establish firm benchmarks for when we feel it is appropriate to remove people from cons, without that meaning either of us is a bad person or the kind of GM who engages in questionable behavior. For the record, I don't run games like this guy. I don't run games at cons. I think you are bringing a lot of certainty about things to this discussion that you don't have.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh, irony is a wonderful thing.
> 
> @_*Bedrockgames*_ is complaining that folks are rushing to judgement and we're negatively impacting this guy's life without learning the facts all the while not bothering to actually spend any time learning the facts that are IN THIS THREAD.  That's a whole lot of irony right there.
> 
> So, folks, the moral of the story is, actually do a bit of due diligence before cramming your foot in your mouth and looking like a ninny.




Hussar, I don't think I look like a ninny at all. I am talking about the situation in general and the posts I have seen where it looks like people are getting far too comfortable with things like public shaming, with global bans from cons for one incident (which I think isn't as cut and dry as people are making it). And again, this is a 200+ post thread with lots of filler and bickering. If there is a crucial piece of information you want me to see link to it, or point it out like Riley did. Don't just declare there is some key info buried in a 200+ thread. But see my response to Riley. This is a complicated scenario, I've said repeatedly I am taking my time formulating my opinion (both in terms of finding facts, but equally important, in terms of just thinking about it and forming a judgement).


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> From the post that you were provided
> http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html
> 
> (edited for length, emphasis supplied by me):
> ...




The GM has given a different amount though if Riley's quote is true. 

I am talking about the quoted section Riley mentions where it says:



> That post includes a link, and it also quotes a player in that game, recounting how Rolfe told the players that the PCs had been "raped for many many hours. Then he introduced our rapists, who weren’t even part of the story (not that that would have made it better or anything). They then told us they wanted to see us run, that they would give us 10 mins before catching up to us and raping us again and again."




This is the part I could not find in the blog entry or the post (not saying it isn't there, I just didn't find it on a quick initial reading). Like I said, planning to read it in more depth when I get back


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar, I don't think I look like a ninny at all. I am talking about the situation in general and the posts I have seen where it looks like people are getting far too comfortable with things like public shaming, with global bans from cons for one incident (which I think isn't as cut and dry as people are making it). And again, this is a 200+ post thread with lots of filler and bickering. If there is a crucial piece of information you want me to see link to it, or point it out like Riley did. Don't just declare there is some key info buried in a 200+ thread. But see my response to Riley. This is a complicated scenario, I've said repeatedly I am taking my time formulating my opinion (both in terms of finding facts, but equally important, in terms of just thinking about it and forming a judgement).




But you are also, sometimes subtly, downplaying the incident.  It wasn't "in game rape".  It was advertised for 'mature' audiences.  The GM was just "clueless".  Etc.

I/we may be misinterpreting your point, but it's easy to read this as "Oh, it's just make-believe rape. What's the matter? Can't take a joke?"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> But you are also, sometimes subtly, downplaying the incident.  It wasn't "in game rape".  It was advertised for 'mature' audiences.  The GM was just "clueless".  Etc.
> 
> I/we may be misinterpreting your point, but it's easy to read this as "Oh, it's just make-believe rape. What's the matter? Can't take a joke?"




I am not downplaying it. I am saying I can see rape or humor intended to imply the possibility of rape in a game, being considered mature content (correction 18+). Not saying people have to be onboard with it. I am just saying this was advertised as 18+. If I go to a movie and it is advertised as 18+, I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was a rape joke or a rape scene. I wouldn't automatically expect it either. I just wouldn't be that surprised. I certainly think it is inadvisable to spring that sort of thing on players (particularly at a con where no one knows each other). And I personally don't see the appeal of it all. But I don't know that it isn't a simple misjudgment on this persons part. On the blog linked, he is described as having an impeccable record up to this point. It very well could have been a misguided attempt at tackling a serious theme, it could have been adolescent humor. I don't know. I just don't know that it requires a global reaction from the whole gaming community (and like I said before, the con can do what it wants about him in my opinion).


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, what does all of this mean in the instant case? I happen to agree that the rise of social media, like the rise of all other forms of mass communication (printing press, telegraph, radio, TV, telephone, etc.) will necessarily change the way people interact, and that, especially early on, it can get confusing. I also agree that we should be careful - "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is still putting on its shoes."*
> 
> But that only means that we exercise our own judgment. Not that we abdicate our responsibility to ensure that, inter alia, conventions are safe places for all gamers to attend.




Indeed. And given the fact that the GM in question doesn't seem to be learning any lesson from the ban, then that punishment fits that infraction. The process there is functioning reasonably appropriately, even if it got started indirectly. And I think the overall community is strengthened by knowledge of cases in which these processes work.

Doesn't stop me from worrying about some of various social media campaigns/mobs though.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MGibster (Jun 11, 2019)

We're not just talking about one incident.  While the example in the OP might be a particularly egregious example of bad behavior this kind of thing has been part of our little hobby for a long time and it drives people away.  A lot of us probably have anecdotes about new gamers feeling unwelcome either because of creepy behavior, lack of hygiene, or a club like atmosphere making it clear they're an outsider.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> As long as we're going to refer back to John Dodd's statement - he also pointed out that 12 of the more than 20 people who contacted him about the incident had misidentified the GM in question. Hence his exhortion to determine and work with reliable information rather than internet rumor.




IMO this makes BRG's refusal to accept John Dodd's assessment, even less understandable. How can BRG maintain "I don't know", how can BRG cast doubt on Dodd's decision, even after reading Dodd's account of his process?

I have a speculative answer to that question, and it's not pretty. It's also been raised, as a general point rather than as a specific accusation against BRG, earlier in this thread. 



billd91 said:


> it's hard to avoid playing a game of telephone as the story moves around, farther and farther from the parties who were directly involved.




You say it's hard. I say it requires some effort. We can sort out the primary sources from the secondary sources. We can distinguish between the secondary sources which refer to the primary sources, and advance carefully from there, versus the secondary sources which jump to conclusions. We can account for the biases of sources (for example, James Desboroughs has a very specific history with the topic of rape in TRPGs). Once we do that, sticking to the facts isn't a matter of chance; it's a matter of rigor.

Dodd could have prevented confusion about who was the GM of the "Things from the Flood" game with the "lads on holiday" description - he could have nipped confusion in the bud - if he hadn't concealed Kevin Rolfe's name. The best prevention AND cure for misinformation, is accurate, complete information. If Dodd thought that he could prevent the world from discovering who was the GM in question, *at an event with a published schedule*, then he badly over-estimated his control over other people's access to information. "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

Bill, if you are advancing an agenda which is more about social media in general, than about this incident in particular, then may I remind you of your mod warning, a few pages ago: this thread is about how people in the hobby treat each other, or words to that effect.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

MGibster said:


> We're not just talking about one incident.  While the example in the OP might be a particularly egregious example of bad behavior this kind of thing has been part of our little hobby for a long time and it drives people away.  A lot of us probably have anecdotes about new gamers feeling unwelcome either because of creepy behavior, lack of hygiene, or a club like atmosphere making it clear they're an outsider.




That's another sub-text from some of these people: "If people are feeling unwelcome/uncomfortable about being in the gaming community because of bad behavior, and they decide not to participate, that's too bad but it's their choice.  They could just tough it out if they really cared.  But to ban the people who are driving them away is taking away their rights."

Sorry, but given the choice between those two things, I'm all for weeding out the jerks.  The jerks got their way for the first 40 years of the hobby.  Time for a change.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar, I don't think I look like a ninny at all. I am talking about the situation in general and the posts I have seen where it looks like people are getting far too comfortable with things like public shaming, with global bans from cons for one incident (which I think isn't as cut and dry as people are making it).




I think you have a problem in that you are discussing what you see as a general issue, in a thread about an incident that does not support your points well at all.

Find a documented incident where public shaming had a major impact on a GM, and it turns out the public was really wrong, and you might have something.  But here, what you have are hypothetical, things you *fear* can happen, but for which we don't have evidence at hand.  Without some validation that the fears are reality, what you have is, in effect, a slippery slope argument, and we all know the rhetorical weaknesses of that.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I think you have a problem in that you are discussing what you see as a general issue, in a thread about an incident that does not support your points well at all.
> 
> Find a documented incident where public shaming had a major impact on a GM, and it turns out the public was really wrong, and you might have something.  But here, what you have are hypothetical, things you *fear* can happen, but for which we don't have evidence at hand.  Without some validation that the fears are reality, what you have is, in effect, a slippery slope argument, and we all know the rhetorical weaknesses of that.




In before "Salem witch trials!"


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> In before "Salem witch trials!"




I don't believe any of the victims of the Salem witch trials were running role playing games, so they are perhaps not a great example from which to extrapolate.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

Just want to say a bit of a my bad. I misread part of the blog post about someone trying to gain publicity. My misread. Thanks for correcting me. 



> he’s now been identified by someone who was seeking to use these events for their own publicity, whose name I won’t give out because it will give him the publicity he wants.




I’m actually a little disappointed that the person in question would not have been identified by the con. I would think that it’s in public interest to disseminate the fact that someone was banned for bad behaviour so that others can decide if they want this person volunteering.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I think you have a problem in that you are discussing what you see as a general issue, in a thread about an incident that does not support your points well at all.
> 
> Find a documented incident where public shaming had a major impact on a GM, and it turns out the public was really wrong, and you might have something.  But here, what you have are hypothetical, things you *fear* can happen, but for which we don't have evidence at hand.  Without some validation that the fears are reality, what you have is, in effect, a slippery slope argument, and we all know the rhetorical weaknesses of that.




Online campaigns have almost certainly colored a number of firings in the computer game (online and console) game world. Alison Rapp, Jessica Price, Peter Fries. I don't think you have to find a case of an innocent GM being targeted to be wary of social media campaigns and the impact they can have on real people's lives. Fact is - the tool can be put to evil uses as well as good (depending on your perspective), has been, and almost certainly will be in the future. We shouldn't be blasé about them.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I’m actually a little disappointed that the person in question would not have been identified by the con. I would think that it’s in public interest to disseminate the fact that someone was banned for bad behaviour so that others can decide if they want this person volunteering.




That’s a risky step to take for any group/institution. It’s one thing to fire someone or ban them from your premises or events. It’s another to broadcast that person’s name to the public.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

I mean, to be fair, demonstrably false accusations started Gamergate. It's funny how it's only "internet mob mentality" when the mob is pursuing goals antithetical to one's political leaning.

This is what people who insist on speaking in hypotheticals don't get: there isn't a single, one-size-fits all solution to this. Context matters. This is (one of many reasons) why the Central Park 5 example doesn't fit here; the context was extreme racism. It's also why the Gamergate example I just brought up doesn't really work; dudebro gets dumped and decides to get back at his ex by posting what amounts to a "dear penthouse" letter on a forum populated by misogynists. You don't just automatically believe everything you read; context matters.

I get that there's confusion around this point, especially with the whole "believe survivors" movement; but that movement exists in spaces that recognize the racism that fueled the false imprisonment of the Central Park Five or lynchings in the Deep South. Context matters, even in these cases. Even though the statement sounds absolute it's still not necessarily a one-size fits all thing.

Communal accountability is necessary for a safe, inclusive community. It means outing "missing stairs" and demanding (if not outright creating) consequences for bad behavior. The biggest trouble is, right now, is that bad actors are often eventually welcomed back into the industry without ever having to apologize for or be held to account for their bad behavior. Case in point: Nick Robinson and Matt Conn are at E3 right now hawking games. Nobody took away Kevin Rofle's license to GM games in the comfort of his own home and I guarantee in a few years he'll be back running games at cons whether he ever changes his story and properly atones or not (I'd be surprised if he does) and with only a handful of people, so easily ignored, crying foul about it. Zak Smith is still making games and will keep making games that will sell and one day, years from now, he'll show up at a con and nobody will question his presence. I do not understand the weeping for these men. Things will turn out just fine for them.

And that's the one downside to social accountability; it has a shelf life. How long that lasts depends on how genuine and sincere bad actors are in taking responsibility and atoning for their actions. Sometimes they do it right away, and the community largely moves on; see Dan Harmon or James Gunn. Sometimes they have to get dragged there kicking and screaming but eventually make it there, like Aziz Ansari. Everyone else? They understand that if they just lay low for a certain length of time, the recency of their transgressions will fade and they can just waltz back in like nothing ever happened. And the troubling thing is; most industries play along with it, and gaming is no different. Talent and bank-ability trump ethics and accountability every time. 

There's a reason why social accountability efforts keep harping on bad actors long after it seems everyone else has tired of talking about them. It's all they can do to keep what little accountability they're able to muster alive long after everyone else seems ready to forget, if not forgive.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

macd21 said:


> That’s a risky step to take for any group/institution. It’s one thing to fire someone or ban them from your premises or events. It’s another to broadcast that person’s name to the public.




There are risks in naming the individual. One can sometimes mitigate those risks by stating only the most empirical facts: "we have, in the past, entrusted (individual name) with DM duties at (convention name), and as of the current con, we will no longer entrust (name) with DM roles." Astute readers may wonder what story lies behind this decision, and may find out - but hey, the con didn't make any public statements beyond literal and verifiable facts.

There are also risks in NOT naming the individual.

One of the latter risks, is that when word gets around, about "that DM who ran Things from the Flood", and there are two DMs who ran Things from the Flood games at UK Expo 2019: the omission of Rolfe's name, increases the risk that people will mistakenly blame the *other* TftF DM for Rolfe's actions.

Another of the risks, with Missing Stairs, is that he'll go elsewhere and do the same thing, getting booted from venue after venue, while at each of those venues he racks up a higher and higher total count of players with shocked faces. I doubt that this particular DM has as many options in the UK, as he would in the USA; but suppressing names has had a someone-else's-problem effect, in other domains, which I will not deign to enumerate here.

Sometimes people accept risk *to themselves*, in order to avert or reduce risks *to others*. IMO this is the core of heroism. I cannot tell UK Expo what risks it must take, for the greater good; that's their choice, not mine. But if my local game con refused to take risks, and *in the process left others at risk*, then I'd be less interested in going to that con to fulfill my TRPG heroic fantasies.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

"Sure it can (and often is) can be used for good, but it can also be used as a tool for evil!"

This is an argument that holds absolutely no water. Here's a brief but by no means conclusive list of things for which this could said to apply to:

*Axes
*Hammers
*Knives
*Motorized Vehicles
*Woodchippers
*Video Games
*Tabletop RPGs
*Genitalia
*Novels
*Films
*Computers
*Satellites
*Agriculture
*Civilization

The list goes on and on.

We don't cancel video games because racists make ethnic cleansing games and we didn't cancel Tabletop RPGs when F.A.T.A.L. was published. Using the "libs'" tactics against them is one of the most enduring and, sadly, effective practices of the most vile corners of the internet. Again, see James Gunn. Clutching at our pearls and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is exactly what they _want _us to do.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I think you have a problem in that you are discussing what you see as a general issue, in a thread about an incident that does not support your points well at all.
> 
> Find a documented incident where public shaming had a major impact on a GM, and it turns out the public was really wrong, and you might have something.  But here, what you have are hypothetical, things you *fear* can happen, but for which we don't have evidence at hand.  Without some validation that the fears are reality, what you have is, in effect, a slippery slope argument, and we all know the rhetorical weaknesses of that.




Obviously I disagree. I think we are seeing the whole hobby focus on this one individual over one incident and many are calling for him to be banned from other cobs, for him to be pushed out of the hobby, and for reforms like all cons using X cards as a result of all this. I think it is fair to question whether this is moving in a good direction, whether this response is appropriate and whether it is going to cause undo hardship on the GM in question. Everyone is so confident in the moral judgment of the community and of the ability of this kind of online reaction to produce good results. I am not. Again I think there is good reason to be cautious here. Personally I am pretty uncomfortable with the reaction. And like I said, I have been pretty uncomfortable with how the hobby has become more moblike online.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough, I missed the quotations (though in fairness I am not writing a news article ). But, and not picking on Danny here because I find him to be one of the most reasonable posters in these discussions, but here is one example that to me seems to be defending mob mentality (it was in response to a poster arguing that public shaming is a problem):
> 
> There have definitely been defenses of shunning and shaming, and using the power of social media to do so here I think. And I do think it isn't inaccurate to call this reaction an internet mob reaction. It is occurring on threads like this, facebook, all over twitter, on blogs and youtube channels. We have painted a picture of this person based on one session, which could have been anything from a misjudgment on his part, to blatantly offensive GMing, to an over-reaction on the part of the players. I honestly have a very hard time assessing it not having been there myself, because this is a case where how it was delivered and the tone would have mattered a great deal. Also the vibe of the tables would have mattered too.




This person is an adult.  Unless he’s been under a rock for the past decade, he probably is aware of how social norms have changed.  Either deliberately or by gross misjudgment, he chose a path that seems to have caused emotional distress.  Consequently, either way, _his judgement is suspect_, and that isn’t a desirable quality in someone running an event at a convention.

If you want an analogous situation, look at Tailhook.

Less serious: check out the career of increasingly embattled MLB umpire, Angel Hernandez.



> ...he is being eliminated from the hobby...




No, he is being banned from participating in *one aspect *of the hobby, namely running events at conventions.  He’s still able to play privately...if any will have him.

If you think that he might not have too many willing to play with him, knowing of these events, you may be correct.  _But that’s on him._  Actions have consequences.  He chose to be shocking; others can choose not to associate with him.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> The only reason it doesn't happen is because the Venn Diagram of Awesome Comments that Deserve XP and Commenters that Play Paladins and Love Them resembles two balls, one bobbing the Atlantic Ocean, and one bobbing in the Pacific.




This is the first time I've ever been publicly compared to the Panama Canal.

In private, well... that was private.

Meanwhile, if BRG can skim post #213, without seeing anything about rape, then he's got a blind spot. I can bring him water, but I can't make him drink. I also can't persuade anyone that the Earth is round, if they're sufficiently determined to believe otherwise.

Meh. We're down to the usual regulars, both on the "Boys will be Boys" side and on the other side.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Obviously I disagree. I think we are seeing the whole hobby focus on this one individual




"...the whole hobby..."?

Where are you getting the idea that anything other than a few vocal people here and on social media even give a fetid dingo's kidney about this - or are even aware of it?

I mean that sincerely - where are you getting the impression that any significant portion of "the whole hobby" is focused on something other than their own lives and gaming sessions?  Remember that we are talking about literally *millions* of people.  Where are you seeing _millions of people_ focusing on this?

At this point I will not accept hyperbole for effect as an argument.  You want to start talking about supposedly real dangers, you need to speak for real, not in hyperbole, or we won't get anywhere.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> I have a speculative answer to that question, and it's not pretty. It's also been raised, as a general point rather than as a specific accusation against BRG, earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> .




i don’t know you are suggesting here. But I have a sense. I think this kind of attitude is unfortunately more common in these discussions today. But I knew it was possible the moment I stated an unpopular point of view. Promise I am not coming from a bad place. I just take a different view of things than you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> "...the whole hobby..."?
> 
> Where are you getting the idea that anything other than a few vocal people here and on social media even give a fetid dingo's kidney about this - or are even aware of it?
> 
> ...




It is a subjective sense of course but this topic is getting a lot of discussion on social media among gamers (including this rsther long thread). Any time this sort of thing occurs it tends to become a big topic of discussion. I don’t think ‘all gamers’ care about it. But a very vocal portion of the hobby devoted considerable attention to this stuff it seems


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a subjective sense of course but this topic is getting a lot of discussion on social media among gamers (including this rsther long thread). Any time this sort of thing occurs it tends to become a big topic of discussion. I don’t think ‘all gamers’ care about it. But a very vocal portion of the hobby devoted considerable attention to this stuff it seems




You've yet to make a convincing argument for why we ought to consider that a bad thing.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> A man, a plan, a canal, Palindrome.
> 
> .... darn it. Missing something. What should I do?
> 
> Borrow, or rob?




Might as well Jump!

[video=youtube_share;SwYN7mTi6HM]https://youtu.be/SwYN7mTi6HM[/video]

Wait, that's not quite right.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So yeah, I blame a very vocal portion of the hobby. Is it the same vocal portion that you are blaming?




I think the hobby is extremely polarized and personally I am not much of a fan of either extreme. I think it is becoming harder and harder for people to have honest disputes and disagreements without folks loading a large quantity of assumptions upon you for simple disagreement. Here you are essentially saying anyone who disagrees with you is toxic or terrible in some other way, and that is the reason they disagree. That isn't how normal humans operate in my view. I assume you are taking the position you currently take on this issue because you genuinely think it is right. I happen to think it is misguided, but I don't think you are doing it from some kind of bad intent.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> You've yet to make a convincing argument for why we ought to consider that a bad thing.




I think I have. My view of it is we are giving into our worse nature online when we publicly shame or go after people like this, or when we recklessly pursue a moral program of some kind in the wake of such an event. I think there is a lot of cruelty being expressed in this thread and people don't see it, because they think they are so correct. Personally I am not a big fan of cruelty.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think I have. My view of it is we are giving into our worse nature online when we publicly shame or go after people like this, or when we recklessly pursue a moral program of some kind in the wake of such an event. I think there is a lot of cruelty being expressed in this thread and people don't see it, because they think they are so correct. Personally I am not a big fan of cruelty.




So, when you have clear evidence of somebody behaving cruelly towards others, how would you proceed in resolving that situation?


----------



## macd21 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Obviously I disagree. I think we are seeing the whole hobby focus on this one individual over one incident and many are calling for him to be banned from other cobs, for him to be pushed out of the hobby, and for reforms like all cons using X cards as a result of all this. I think it is fair to question whether this is moving in a good direction, whether this response is appropriate and whether it is going to cause undo hardship on the GM in question. Everyone is so confident in the moral judgment of the community and of the ability of this kind of online reaction to produce good results. I am not. Again I think there is good reason to be cautious here. Personally I am pretty uncomfortable with the reaction. And like I said, I have been pretty uncomfortable with how the hobby has become more moblike online.




Is this indicative of the hobby moving in a good direction? Let’s see: GM used rape to try and squick his players. The result was that the incident was investigated, and the GM was banned from the con in question, and probably other cons. Seems appropriate, and not undue hardship to the GM in question. So all positives there. Encouraging use of X cards is another positive.

As for ‘the moral judgement of the community’ and ‘the ability of this kind of online reaction to produce good results,’ again you are twisting what happened into something it’s not. The GM was not banned because of the online reaction, he was banned because the con organizers investigated the situation and reacted appropriately. This has nothing to do with an online mob denigrating his name. The difference social media made in this case is that A) it brought the incident to the con’s attention, and B) it fostered a climate in which people feel more confident about bringing complaints, and organizations are more inclined to take them seriously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think I have. My view of it is we are giving into our worse nature online when we publicly shame or go after people like this, or when we recklessly pursue a moral program of some kind in the wake of such an event. I think there is a lot of cruelty being expressed in this thread and people don't see it, because they think they are so correct. Personally I am not a big fan of cruelty.




Foreseeable repercussions for actions =/= cruelty.

What happened to this (AFAICT) rightfully blackballed GM is not appreciably different than getting banned for being a jerk in ENWorld, save for the publicity that means he may face bans from more than one convention.

_And even then_, people get subjected to heightened scrutiny across boards like this, especially if they use the same usernames on multiple sites.

See also football hooliganism and travel restrictions related thereto.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

MarkB said:


> So, when you have clear evidence of somebody behaving cruelly towards others, how would you proceed in resolving that situation?




I would not publicly shame them or try to push them out if the hobby. I would probably something in the moment. Again it isn’t so black and white.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would not publicly shame them or try to push them out if the hobby. I would probably something in the moment. Again it isn’t so black and white.




Wouldn't it bother you that your "in the moment" solution would leave them free to be just as cruel again, when you're not looking?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a subjective sense of course




Okay.  But do you not recognize that means the strength of your argument comes only from your personal credibility?  

Do you even want that? Do you really want anyone to change their behavior based on what you admit is merely a subjective sense? I mean, apply that to basically *any other real problem people face* - do you want people acting on subjective senses, or real, solid information?

Be the change you seek - if you don't want people to take subjective senses at face value on other important things, don't look for it here.  



> but this topic is getting a lot of discussion on social media among gamers (including this rather long thread).




This thread is less than five percent of the EN World posts for the period since it started.



> Any time this sort of thing occurs it tends to become a big topic of discussion.




For some value of "big"...

But... you should ask yourself how much of that is the public shaming of the person in question, and how much of it is arguments like this, where we are spending posts and posts trying to deal with reactions like yours?  How much are *you* driving the topic?



> I don’t think ‘all gamers’ care about it.




"I think we are seeing the whole hobby focus on this one individual..."  Those were your words, a mere two hours ago.

So, now what are we to think about your position?  See earlier in the post, when I noted you'd positioned yourself to be based on credibility?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Wouldn't it bother you that your "in the moment" solution would leave them free to be just as cruel again, when you're not looking?




No. Especially in the case we are discussing because it was game content real world actions. That is a risk that happens when you don't hand out some kind of permanent punishment


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Meanwhile, if BRG can skim post #213, without seeing anything about rape, then he's got a blind spot. I can bring him water, but I can't make him drink. I also can't persuade anyone that the Earth is round, if they're sufficiently determined to believe otherwise.




I did not see the quote you posted. Which very much changes the nature of the rape (my understanding was the rape scene was implied--but your quote suggested otherwise). I will read it again now that I am home, but I honestly didn't see it the first time. But I want to be clear here, I do not enjoy the condescension you are leveling at me. You are talking to me like I am less intelligent than you and beneath you. Please don't do that.

EDIT: So that quoted section was buried in the comments section of the blog post. I am following the link now. It isn't like it was super obvious Riley

EDIT II: Having read through it, I think these are two strikingly different accounts and I wouldn't automatically believe one over the other. There are plenty of reasons you end up with different narratives of an event. I think in this case, the convention handled it how they saw fit. I don't object to that. They can do what they want. I do see the player mentioned there were tears shed by all, and this strikes me as a somewhat unusual reaction to game content. Just based on the description, it was off-putting but I think adults shouldn't be crying over that sort of thing.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> No. Especially in the case we are discussing because it was game content real world actions. That is a risk that happens when you don't hand out some kind of permanent punishment




Sorry, but I just can't parse this reply. It feels like it's missing some words. Can you clarify?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Sorry, but I just can't parse this reply. It feels like it's missing some words. Can you clarify?




Yes, what I meant was, I am not worried about it. Look there are plenty of real world examples of what happens when you use permanent punishments in order to make sure someone doesn't make the world unsafe again. And obviously some actions might require that (if we were talking about murder rather than a person running a game session) things might be different. I am happy to address cruelty when I see it. But I don't think there is anything I should be doing to make sure there is 0 chance that cruelty arises again. The best I can do is try to help steer someone away from that kind of behavior.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the hobby is extremely polarized and personally I am not much of a fan of either extreme. I think it is becoming harder and harder for people to have honest disputes and disagreements without folks loading a large quantity of assumptions upon you for simple disagreement. Here you are essentially saying anyone who disagrees with you is toxic or terrible in some other way, and that is the reason they disagree. That isn't how normal humans operate in my view. I assume you are taking the position you currently take on this issue because you genuinely think it is right. I happen to think it is misguided, but I don't think you are doing it from some kind of bad intent.




I am quite frankly at a loss.

Is my position that 'People shouldn't run rape scenarios in a public venue like a con, and if they do should be banned from running games at cons' an extreme position or side?

If it *is* an extreme position to take...I am unsure I'd like to be part of a group where "lets not subject people to rape scenarios on-screen or off" is an extreme position. This isnt about me calling you toxic or terrible. I honestly don't know you? But the ideas you have expressed I find harmful in general...though unfortunately not rare.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think I have. My view of it is we are giving into our worse nature online when we publicly shame or go after people like this, or when we recklessly pursue a moral program of some kind in the wake of such an event. I think there is a lot of cruelty being expressed in this thread and people don't see it, because they think they are so correct. Personally I am not a big fan of cruelty.




Oh, you've made arguments, of course. None of them are _convincing_, however, for all of the reasons spelled out across the posts over the last page and half. To recap just the points made in this very short post:

"we are giving into our worse nature online when we publicly shame or go after people like this"
Again, this is less about shame than it is (a) public accountability and (b) safety. I think it's fair to question, at this point, how the con would have handled this situation were the complaints _only _brought discreetly to a handful of con attendees as opposed to being made public. Would the con have handled it in the same exact way? Maybe. Maybe not; I mean, the guy who made the decision knew him for at least a decade. Made him a face of the con by making him a Room Captain (this point being exactly why some people might not have felt safe going to the con organizer). Predators rely on "good ol' boy" networks to keep their dirty laundry private so they can keep being predators. That's the accountability piece. As for safety, well, I am sure there are cons where Kevin Rolfe will be more than welcome to run his games still. Are the people who would be most traumatized by his "shocking" content going to give pause to joining his games when they see his name on the listing, now? Public awareness makes people safe by giving them the information they need to avoid being traumatized by bad actors, while at the same time raising public accountability for those who might have otherwise given his behavior a pass.

"or when we recklessly pursue a moral program of some kind in the wake of such an event"
To be clear, the "moral program" in question is "rape = not acceptable". [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] has covered this in better detail, but you are bringing moral relativism to an argument that is mostly centered around sexualized violence. Call both sides equally bad in their extremism is a false equivalence of the dangerous. "People who spring rape scenarios on players and then lie about in an interview with the guy who wrote 'In Defense of Rape' should not be allowed to be in our hobby" is not the moral or extreme equivalent to "LOL great job owning the libs!" and the latter are explicitly counting on well meaning people making that mistake.

"I think there is a lot of cruelty being expressed in this thread and  people don't see it, because they think they are so correct. Personally I  am not a big fan of cruelty." [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] covered this in a point I see you have not responded to yet, in that:


> Foreseeable repercussions for actions =/= cruelty.



I don't really have anything else to add to that.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Just based on the description, it was off-putting but I think adults shouldn't be crying over that sort of thing.




This is pointless. If you don't understand how sexualized violence can be traumatizing, and don't understand the nature of trauma to the extent that you'd shame people for _crying _over it? In the middle of you arguing that shaming people for springing rape scenarios on people is bad? You are existing in mind frame that is so far removed from where anybody and everybody who has tried explaining this to you is that there is absolutely no point in any of us continuing to waste energy on it. Whether you think you are being well meaning or not, you are not. I'm not going to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but honestly the alternative frightens me. Quite frankly, your moral compass, and particularly your sense of empathy and compassion, is broken. Address that first, and then we can continue this conversation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This is pointless. If you don't understand how sexualized violence can be traumatizing, and don't understand the nature of trauma to the extent that you'd shame people for _crying _over it? In the middle of you arguing that shaming people for springing rape scenarios on people is bad? You are existing in mind frame that is so far removed from where anybody and everybody who has tried explaining this to you is that there is absolutely no point in any of us continuing to waste energy on it. Whether you think you are being well meaning or not, you are not. I'm not going to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but honestly the alternative frightens me. Quite frankly, your moral compass, and particularly your sense of empathy and compassion, is broken. Address that first, and then we can continue this conversation.




It raises my suspicion a bit of the account. I can't possibly be the only one who finds this kind of behavior a bit child-like (or possible the kind of thing you might see in high schools). Yes, people sometimes cry because they were traumatized. In my experience that isn't the most common reaction. But people also sometimes seek attention and this kind of incident, especially when the people involved in helping resolve it are crying as well, strikes me as potentially attention seeking.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> . Whether you think you are being well meaning or not, you are not. I'm not going to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but honestly the alternative frightens me.




I am being well meaning. I am also being honest. I think a lot of people here might not be accustomed to honesty of opinion.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It raises my suspicion a bit of the account. I can't possibly be the only one who finds this kind of behavior a bit child-like (or possible the kind of thing you might see in high schools). Yes, people sometimes cry because they were traumatized. In my experience that isn't the most common reaction. But people also sometimes seek attention and this kind of incident, especially when the people involved in helping resolve it are crying as well, strikes me as potentially attention seeking.




Its also a bit telling that you seem more upset that someone might be 'attention seeking' by overstating how much an incident affected them then someone in a public venue telling/implying to the players that their characters were Raped.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> I am quite frankly at a loss.
> 
> Is my position that 'People shouldn't run rape scenarios in a public venue like a con, and if they do should be banned from running games at cons' an extreme position or side?
> 
> If it *is* an extreme position to take...I am unsure I'd like to be part of a group where "lets not subject people to rape scenarios on-screen or off" is an extreme position. This isnt about me calling you toxic or terrible. I honestly don't know you? But the ideas you have expressed I find harmful in general...though unfortunately not rare.




No, that position you just stated isn't extreme. Extreme is not allowing for any other points of view, or assuming anyone who doesn't take the exact same position as you on this issue is a bad actor or toxic. We all come from different backgrounds, have different experiences, and have seen different things. We reach different conclusions about this stuff.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am being well meaning. I am also being honest. I think a lot of people here might not be accustomed to honesty of opinion.




It's not the honesty that's the problem. It's the clear lack of empathy and compassion. It's the immediately equating tears with suspicion. It's the dismissing the very clearly traumatizing nature of the event.

 Though to be honest, that last sentence is the exact kind of thing bad faith trolling edgelords love to say. "It's too bad you <insert derogatory term here> can't handle the TRUTH <hi-fives buddies back on 8chan>".


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> Its also a bit telling that you seem more upset that someone might be 'attention seeking' by overstating how much an incident affected them then someone in a public venue telling/implying to the players that their characters were Raped.




I am not terribly concerned about character rape. I am very concerned about real world rape. But yes, a character being raped in a game concerns me less than a person's life in the hobby being affected forever. Not saying the incident is nothing. I just don't think it warrants the urgency or large reaction it has been getting (I frankly didn't think it was a newsworthy event).

Again, I find the scenario distasteful. I am even a bit offended by it. But I just don't think the rape of a character in a game is as troubling as people being affected by things in the real world.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not terribly concerned about character rape. I am very concerned about real world rape. But yes, a character being raped in a game concerns me less than a person's life in the hobby being affected forever. Not saying the incident is nothing. I just don't think it warrants the urgency or large reaction it has been getting (I frankly didn't think it was a newsworthy event).




This is an objectively awful stance.

Edit: I'll address the edit too


Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I find the scenario distasteful. I am even a bit offended by it.  But I just don't think the rape of a character in a game is as troubling  as people being affected by things in the real world.




It's not about distaste. It's about subjecting people to trauma that they hadn't signed up for. You don't know who's sitting down at your table. Sexualized violence is distressingly common in the real world, and springing a rape scenario on the character of a player who has been raped is exactly how you re-open those wounds and re-traumatize people.

To say nothing of the fact that it's exhibiting active hostility to those groups most at danger of sexualized violence (women and LGBTQ+ players).


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's not the honesty that's the problem. It's the clear lack of empathy and compassion. It's the immediately equating tears with suspicion. It's the dismissing the very clearly traumatizing nature of the event.
> 
> Though to be honest, that last sentence is the exact kind of thing bad faith trolling edgelords love to say. "It's too bad you <insert derogatory term here> can't handle the TRUTH <hi-fives buddies back on 8chan>".




I am not an edge lord. And I am a very compassionate person. But that doesn't mean I take everything that I see at face value. And one important part of empathy and compassion is not automatically giving into attention seeking behavior. I just think this account has some hallmarks of attention seeking.


----------



## HJFudge (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not terribly concerned about character rape. I am very concerned about real world rape. But yes, a character being raped in a game concerns me less than a person's life in the hobby being affected forever. Not saying the incident is nothing. I just don't think it warrants the urgency or large reaction it has been getting (I frankly didn't think it was a newsworthy event).




I disagree. I think its quite newsworthy.

But the news isnt 'GM at a con does a skeezy rapey thing'. The news is that, finally, someone DID something about it instead of just shrugging and saying 'dats life, kiddo'


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> On the plus side, at least the stance finally came to light, instead of dancing around various concerns. Sunlight, disinfectant, etc.




I haven't been dancing around my position. I have been answering as directly and honestly as I can this entire thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

HJFudge said:


> I disagree. I think its quite newsworthy.




And that is fine. I am happy to have that discussion. I can see the value of the gaming community's issues reaching a broader community. But I was surprised to see the BBC covering an incident at a single game a convention. 



> But the news isnt 'GM at a con does a skeezy rapey thing'. The news is that, finally, someone DID something about it instead of just shrugging and saying 'dats life, kiddo'




The headline and the article put focus on the incident. It described that there was a resolution. But I don't think that is the lede here


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not an edge lord. And I am a very compassionate person. But that doesn't mean I take everything that I see at face value. And one important part of empathy and compassion is not automatically giving into attention seeking behavior. I just think this account has some hallmarks of attention seeking.




What hallmarks, exactly? For attention seekers, the people who raised the issue have been remarkably reticent - which is partially why it took awhile for the full story to emerge. A couple of posts outlining events from their perspective, and that's it. It would be difficult for them to have sought less attention short of complete silence.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's not about distaste. It's about subjecting people to trauma that they hadn't signed up for. You don't know who's sitting down at your table. Sexualized violence is distressingly common in the real world, and springing a rape scenario on the character of a player who has been raped is exactly how you re-open those wounds and re-traumatize people.
> \.




People experience all kinds of trauma in the real world that has lasting consequences and can be triggered. I am not particularly interested in seeing a rape scene played out in an RPG, but I think if you go down the road of saying we have to avoid anything that triggers the trauma of a rape survivor in our games and entertainment, then you must also say we have to avoid anything that triggers any kind of trauma survivor. That said, I wouldn't advise running a rape scenario at a con.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> but I think if you go down the road of saying we have to avoid anything that triggers the trauma of a rape survivor in our games and entertainment, then you must also say we have to avoid anything that triggers any kind of trauma survivor.




The problem is less the trigger (though in the case of rape it is still a huge problem) and more the lack of warning/consent.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> People experience all kinds of trauma in the real world that has lasting consequences and can be triggered. I am not particularly interested in seeing a rape scene played out in an RPG, but I think if you go down the road of saying we have to avoid anything that triggers the trauma of a rape survivor in our games and entertainment, then you must also say we have to avoid anything that triggers any kind of trauma survivor. That said, I wouldn't advise running a rape scenario at a con.




First, some traumas are a lot more commonplace than others. Second, you don't need to have experienced rape in order to find it highly disturbing when someone describes it happening to a character whose reactions you are portraying.

Seriously, is this really something you feel the need to downplay?


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am being well meaning. I am also being honest. I think a lot of people here might not be accustomed to honesty of opinion.




I'm reminded of my favorite line from a Taylor Swift song:



> Hey you call me up again just to break me like a promise.
> So casually cruel in the name of being honest.




You've been awfully insulting of your fellow forumites, calling us cruel earlier. Now, calling us dishonest. But you're just telling it like it is, right?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> But you're just telling it like it is, right?




Yes, that's the phrase I was looking for! I was having the hardest time remembering it...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am being well meaning. I am also being honest. I think a lot of people here might not be accustomed to honesty of opinion.




Oh, we are quite accustomed to honesty of opinion.  We are also accustomed to rather unsavory rhetorical practices.

You are now at the point of leveling insinuations against people in order to bolster your position.  People who claim there was crying are attention-seekers.  Folks who react to your apparent lack of empathy are not used to honesty.   You are resorting to _ad hominem_ tactics.

This may be a critical juncture for your discussion.  Rather often, once one dips into such approaches, things do not end well.  How many other people will you say bad things about to hold up your position?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2019)

I didn't know what to expect from Bedrock Games as a publisher, but seeing an (albeit fairly old) book they published written by the RPG Pundit proudly displayed on their front page was not nearly as surprising as it would have been this morning.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not terribly concerned about character rape. I am very concerned about real world rape. But yes, a character being raped in a game concerns me less than a person's life in the hobby being affected forever.




Ok, let's unpack this: *why* are you "very concerned" about "real world rape"?  

I'm hoping it's because you recognize that it's traumatizing.  One of the _most_ traumatizing things that can happen to a person.  

So...assuming you're still with me here...how do you think it affects a survivor when they are immersed in a roleplaying game and not only is their character raped (whether on or off-screen) but it's also treated as if it's a joke?

If you're still ok with "character rape" then I have to wonder just how concerned your really are with 'real world rape'.  If you realize both its frequency and its effects.  Because if you're ok with making jokes about it, without having any idea at all about the backgrounds and experience of those at the table, then I don't think you really don't understand, and can't be very concerned about, 'real world rape'.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, let's unpack this: *why* are you "very concerned" about "real world rape"?
> 
> I'm hoping it's because you recognize that it's traumatizing.  One of the _most_ traumatizing things that can happen to a person.
> 
> ...




Again, I never said I was in favor of character rape. I said I wasn't concerned about, that it concerned me less than things happening to people in the real world. I get people an have their trauma triggered. But I don't think you can structure everything in this world around the possibility that people might have trauma around something.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jun 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> That's another sub-text from some of these people: "If people are feeling unwelcome/uncomfortable about being in the gaming community because of bad behavior, and they decide not to participate, that's too bad but it's their choice.  They could just tough it out if they really cared.  But to ban the people who are driving them away is taking away their rights."
> 
> Sorry, but given the choice between those two things, I'm all for weeding out the jerks.  The jerks got their way for the first 40 years of the hobby.  Time for a change.




As someone who's been on the receiving end of this kind of behaviour to the point of deciding to entirely avoid FLGSs and conventions, can I just say "Thank You."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I never said I was in favor of character rape. I said I wasn't concerned about, that it concerned me less than things happening to people in the real world.




Right.  You think that potentially triggering a rape survivor's PSTD is not as bad as telling somebody that he can't run games at public conventions anymore.  That pretty much clarifies just how 'concerned' you really are.

Really, I don't think anything more needs to be said after that, but here goes...



> I get people an have their trauma triggered. But I don't think you can structure everything in this world around the possibility that people might have trauma around something.




Nobody is asking to structure "everything in this world" around that possibility.  (Even though, statistically, it's a gigantic possibility.)  They're just asking that people have the $%#$%#$%ing respect, decency, and wisdom to not roleplay scenarios involving rape, child abuse, the Holocaust, and elementary school shootings with players in a public, open setting.  And that those who have neither that respect, decency, or wisdom to avoid doing so, and apparently are unable to understand the problem because they try to jerksplain away their behavior, not be put into a position where they can do so again to unsuspecting participants.

Is that _really_ too much to ask?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I didn't know what to expect from Bedrock Games as a publisher, but seeing an (albeit fairly old) book they published written by the RPG Pundit proudly displayed on their front page was not nearly as surprising as it would have been this morning.




I am friends with Pundit. Doesn't mean I agree with him about everything (in fact I think politically he and I are quite far apart). But I get along with him fine. And I published Arrows of Indra. I also used to be a mod at TheRPGsite. When it comes to publishing people and hiring artists, I am just concerned about the material, not what people think about things or their political views. Though to be honest it has been ages since we hired a writer.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Right.  You think that potentially triggering a rape survivor's PSTD is not as bad as telling somebody that he can't run games at public conventions anymore.  That pretty much clarifies just how 'concerned' you really are.




That isn't what I said


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> This may be a critical juncture for your discussion.  Rather often, once one dips into such approaches, things do not end well.  How many other people will you say bad things about to hold up your position?




Okay, I think I am being fairly mild here. And I am not trying to say bad things about people to bolster a position. There were some things on the thread (like people seeming to embrace public shaming) that troubled me, and I said so. Other things like some of the cruelty in the way people were talking about this guy, also troubled me. 

When it comes to the crying, I am not trying to attack the person in question. But my honest reaction to a group of adults crying in that kind of situation (especially when the criers include the game convention personnel sorting out the problem) is this does not seem like normal adult behavior to me.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I didn't know what to expect from Bedrock Games as a publisher, but seeing an (albeit fairly old) book they published written by the RPG Pundit proudly displayed on their front page was not nearly as surprising as it would have been this morning.




Gradine, you were a participant in a thread in the last year or two, in which the OP proposed Native Americans showing up on the European coast, in Trans-Atlantic sailing ships, with guns, and with the intent to invade Europe. Some of us raised some concerns about the implications of a scenario in which the PCs are heroic light-skinned Europeans, resisting the invasion of the dark-skinned conquerors - a narrative which is terribly convenient for any white Americans who don't like thinking about their presence on the North American continent as the outcome of unethical actions by white colonizers. Do you remember BRG's contributions to that thread? They were waffly, and generally anti-intellectual; I summarize them as "who are you people who have read books, to tell the rest of us what is and isn't consistent with history." 

Do you remember a thread about whether D&D orcs echo colonialist imagery? BRG expressed a lot of concern about people coming to *any* conclusions whether JRRT *ever* used racial tropes. I quoted JRRT's passage about the squinting, slant-eyed, sallow-skinned, villainous man in Bree, whom Sam describes as looking like a half-goblin. (I'm not saying, then or now, that JRRT was a white supremacist; and I applaud JRRT's response to the Reich regarding his ancestry. I am, however, saying that JRRT's *imagery* of people from the South and East of Middle-Earth, closely matches the position on people from lands South and East of Europe, which one might commonly encounter among white aristocratic English veterans of WWI.)

BRG just could not accept that *anyone* could see *any* racist implications, even in that passage. "I just feel like we are getting into very rigid territory about what is allowed and what isn't creatively." And so on, and so forth, never saying it all at once... but over time, BRG established how he felt unjustly limited, constrained, and coerced, by those of us who had objections to the depiction of slant-eyed people as *universally and without exception evil*. 

Considering his role in those threads, you might have seen this coming. I did. I didn't want to admit it, because I've enjoyed his posts on more neutral topics such as narrative flow. But when he said he was skimming #213, which has the player's account *in the post* (not just for those who follow the link), and he was *still* denying that Rolfe set up a "you were raped" scene, I could no longer deny the obvious sum of all the "but we don't know" and "maybe it was innocent" and "this isn't black and white" foot-dragging, across dozens of posts, across at least three threads.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay, I think I am being fairly mild here. And I am not trying to say bad things about people to bolster a position. There were some things on the thread (like people seeming to embrace public shaming) that troubled me, and I said so. Other things like some of the cruelty in the way people were talking about this guy, also troubled me.



Here's what I don't get. You can somehow hold in your head the position that people talking about someone having to stop running public games at conventions is a cruelty that you need to speak out about, while also holding the position that someone straight-up confronting someone with a scenario of being raped is no big deal, and not worth making a public fuss about.



> When it comes to the crying, I am not trying to attack the person in question. But my honest reaction to a group of adults crying in that kind of situation (especially when the criers include the game convention personnel sorting out the problem) is this does not seem like normal adult behavior to me.



Then maybe the situation was more traumatic than you imagined it was.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2019)

The truly frustrating thing about these conversations is we have to spend so much time on hypothetical situations that the actual issue never gets dealt with. I mean when some guy can get staggeringly drunk, stalk a woman, assault security staff and we STILL have to debate whether it’s okay to socially sanction him, it just staggers belief. 

Tell you what. Go into your workplace and begin loudly telling rape jokes to a group of colleagues. See what happens. 

Why should this be any different?  The hyperbole here is baffling. Comparing being imprisoned for years with not being able to run games at cons?  Seriously?  That’s the point of equivalency?  
 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], instead of making allusions, why not actually quote the things that trouble you?  Because right now all it looks like you’re doing is victim blaming. Even if that’s not your intention, that is what it looks like.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Considering his role in those threads, you might have seen this coming. I did. I didn't want to admit it, because I've enjoyed his posts on more neutral topics such as narrative flow. But when he said he was skimming #213, which has the player's account *in the post* (not just for those who follow the link), and he was *still* denying that Rolfe set up a "you were raped" scene, I could no longer deny the obvious sum of all the "but we don't know" and "maybe it was innocent" and "this isn't black and white" foot-dragging, across dozens of posts, across at least three threads.




To be absolutely completely fair, the players' description was in post #242. Post #213 was a reply by Hussar, and post #214 was the original link to John Dodd's blog, and contained no excerpts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Gradine, you were a participant in a thread in the last year or two, in which the OP proposed Native Americans showing up on the European coast, in Trans-Atlantic sailing ships, with guns, and with the intent to invade Europe. Some of us raised some concerns about the implications of a scenario in which the PCs are heroic light-skinned Europeans, resisting the invasion of the dark-skinned conquerors - a narrative which is terribly convenient for any white Americans who don't like thinking about their presence on the North American continent as the outcome of unethical actions by white colonizers. Do you remember BRG's contributions to that thread? They were waffly, and generally anti-intellectual; I summarize them as "who are you people who have read books, to tell the rest of us what is and isn't consistent with history."




I do not recall this thread. It sounds like a thread I might comment on. That doesn't sound like a comment I would make (my major in college was history so I have pretty decent respect for history and history books). I could see myself saying we don't have to draw on real world history for fantasy settings or something to that effect. If you could point me to this thread, I'd appreciate it, since that looks to me to at the very least be a somewhat out of context paraphrasing. 



> Do you remember a thread about whether D&D orcs echo colonialist imagery? BRG expressed a lot of concern about people coming to *any* conclusions whether JRRT *ever* used racial tropes. I quoted JRRT's passage about the squinting, slant-eyed, sallow-skinned, villainous man in Bree, whom Sam describes as looking like a half-goblin. (I'm not saying, then or now, that JRRT was a white supremacist; and I applaud JRRT's response to the Reich regarding his ancestry. I am, however, saying that JRRT's *imagery* of people from the South and East of Middle-Earth, closely matches the position on people from lands South and East of Europe, which one might commonly encounter among white aristocratic English veterans of WWI.)
> 
> 
> 
> BRG just could not accept that *anyone* could see *any* racist implications, even in that passage. "I just feel like we are getting into very rigid territory about what is allowed and what isn't creatively." And so on, and so forth, never saying it all at once... but over time, BRG established how he felt unjustly limited, constrained, and coerced, by those of us who had objections to the depiction of slant-eyed people as *universally and without exception evil*.





Again, this is a very uncharitable description of my position. I felt there was a lot going on here, including a growing gulf between players with a high level of education who were exposed to ideas like those of Edward Said and players who hadn't been. And I was saying it is a lot more nuanced than people were painting it as. People can read the thread if they want to see my position. I made a point of being honest and clear in that one. I don't think anything I said was bad. I think people have formed a consensus on this topic that rests on some shaky foundations and will not produce the positive results they think it will. But I don't want to rehash it here. 



> Considering his role in those threads, you might have seen this coming. I did. I didn't want to admit it, because I've enjoyed his posts on more neutral topics such as narrative flow. But when he said he was skimming #213, which has the player's account *in the post* (not just for those who follow the link), and he was *still* denying that Rolfe set up a "you were raped" scene, I could no longer deny the obvious sum of all the "but we don't know" and "maybe it was innocent" and "this isn't black and white" foot-dragging, across dozens of posts, across at least three threads.




I guess I am just a monster Riley. That is the only possible explanation. 

Also that quote was buried in the comments section.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> a character being raped in a game concerns me less than a person's life in the hobby being affected forever.




You say that, as if a player being told their character had been repeatedly raped while unconscious, and was about to be raped again, or murdered, or both, was an event which could not possibly affect THAT PLAYER's life in the hobby forever.

I can imagine a real-life rape survivor, playing in Rolfe's game, who afterwards flinched, every time she remembered Rolfe taking delight in her shocked face. If that flinch made her too uncomfortable to enjoy gaming, ever again, at ANY con... then I could not blame her for that flinch. That is: HER life in the hobby was affected forever.

I'm not really saying this for your benefit. I've seen your responses so far, so I know what to expect. You're on record as denying that *crying* is an understandable response to thinking about the time (or times) one was raped. I'm pointing out that Rolfe is not the ONLY one whose gaming life is affected, for any reader who benefits from my drawing lines to connect those dots.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> @_*Bedrockgames*_, instead of making allusions, why not actually quote the things that trouble you?  Because right now all it looks like you’re doing is victim blaming. Even if that’s not your intention, that is what it looks like.




I am not victim blaming. But I do think we don't have to leave our judgements at the door just because someone is a victim or because they have a history trauma. We have to use our own judgments in these situations. And I don't think a person being positioned as the victim, means everything they say is automatically true or all of their reactions are appropriate. Again, like I said, I think the con was fine in shutting the GM down if they felt that needed to be done. Most of my concerns come in the broader discussions of where this should lead (i.e. should he be banned from other cons, should cons have a blanket policy policing game content at their conventions, should X cards always be used at convention tables, etc).


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 11, 2019)

MarkB said:


> To be absolutely completely fair, the players' description was in post #242. Post #213 was a reply by Hussar, and post #214 was the original link to John Dodd's blog, and contained no excerpts.




That is indeed a valid point. I don't see all posts, because of blocking; so the numbering in MY browser view, is not the same as the numbering in yours. The full, unblocked count is the more universal and appropriate reference for directing a participant back to a previous post. I cannot blame BRG for confusion on that particular point.

I don't think it would make a difference, in eventual outcome; but thank you for bringing up the point, and making me aware of my miscommunication. I'd rather be held to rigorous standards, than participate in a conversation which didn't practice rigorous standards of honesty and process, on this sort of topic.

I tried to get a URL specific to the post with the excerpt. I only got a URL which included that post on the same page; and even that might not be universal, because, again, blocking.

I wish that the post count in my browser view included the ones I can't see (despite the jumps in the series)! In the meantime, is there a better way for me to refer people back to a specific post?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Here's what I don't get. You can somehow hold in your head the position that people talking about someone having to stop running public games at conventions is a cruelty that you need to speak out about, while also holding the position that someone straight-up confronting someone with a scenario of being raped is no big deal, and not worth making a public fuss about.




I have to head out but I want to respond to this before I do. It can be very difficult in a thread like this to clearly lay out my position. I am fielding a lot of very negative and hostile responses where I am being forced to answer difficult questions, often framed in a way I would normally object to. First off, I don't think people talking about this guy is cruelty. I think the cruelty comes in when people have zero hesitancy or remorse when talking about dishing out harsh punishments (like global bans from conventions or publicly shaming the guy). Keep in mind this isn't limited to this thread, but what I've seen on social media here and elsewhere (particularly in places like twitter). Holding up ostracizing as a tool, is something I find particularly cruel and I don't think gamers in general are good at wielding it in a way that doesn't produce bad collateral damage. I've just seen a lot of these social media blow ups where people get painted into much greater villains than they really are, and I don't think it is a good idea to say nothing when they arise (even if you are the only person speaking against a large number of posters). Believe me, I would much rather spend my day in a thread about sandboxes or in a thread where everyone thought my posts were marvelous. That said, I am not saying this is not a big deal. I am saying it is a bad game session where people were made uncomfortable. That happens. That is the sort of thing where I think the best response is to excuse yourself from the table. If it rises to the necessary level, you can alter the people at the con. But I just don't see it as particularly news worthy. I am against cruelty but I am also in favor of people being able to live in the world and figure this stuff out themselves. I think we are now prioritizing 'safety' (in a sense that has little to do with physical safety) in a way that is unhealthy in this hobby.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> You're on record as denying that *crying* is an understandable response to thinking about the time (or times) one was raped. .




That is not what I said. I said that the reaction which involved other people (and by the player's account it seemed the people handing the situation at the convention) was odd. I can totally understand an individual who was traumatized crying. But I have also seen people use tears to manipulate people. And if you have a group of adults crying over something like this, it makes me wonder what is going on. At the very least, it is not, in my view, a typical reaction. I would expect con organizers not to cry while handling a complaint like this. And trust me I understand. I have experienced PTSD myself. But I also think there are healthier and less healthy ways to deal with that kind of thing.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> . But I have also seen people use tears to manipulate people. And if you have a group of adults crying over something like this, it makes me wonder what is going on.




But of course you’re not victim blaming at all by implying that the folks here were being dishonest in their reactions. 

Good grief. 

You have a very strange definition of cruel if it’s okay in your mind to drive people away from a table because of the content (the best reaction would be to walk away) but apparently not letting someone drive people away in the first place is a bridge too far. 

Talk about toxic.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 12, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> I wish that the post count in my browser view included the ones I can't see (despite the jumps in the series)! In the meantime, is there a better way for me to refer people back to a specific post?




It may be browser dependent, but clicking on the hashtagged post number in the very top right of the post (or right-clicking and copying the URL) should get you a link that jumps straight to the post.


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> And if you have a group of adults crying over something like this, it makes me wonder what is going on.




Hints and innuendos. He's just *wondering* what's going on. What's wrong with wondering? How could anyone object to his curiosity? Open minds, right? He didn't say that THOSE adults were engaged in manipulation. He's aware, of course, that some people have used tears for manipulation. "People have, at various times and places in the last thousand years, used tears for manipulation" is a perfectly cromulent assertion. He's not actually asserting that *those particular people at the con, the ones who just recently heard Rolfe's narration of what men with guns tell their characters* are using tears for manipulation. How could anyone know?

How indeed, other than tracking them down and interviewing them, as John Dodd did; but can we trust John Dodd's account of his investigation? How could we possibly trust *his explicit declaration, made in his full name, with his hobby status on the line*, over a vague implication of manipulative tears?

Not that crying for effect is a gendered trope (the femme fatale employing the Wounded Gazelle Gambit). Not that any woman has ever pointed out that she's called an ice-cold bitch if she *doesn't* cry, and a fragile weakling if she *does* cry. I didn't say anything about gender. You can't fairly infer that from context. My intentions are good. Trust me!


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 12, 2019)

MarkB said:


> It may be browser dependent, but clicking on the hashtagged post number in the very top right of the post (or right-clicking and copying the URL) should get you a link that jumps straight to the post.




 Like this?

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showt...ang-rape-role-playing-game/page37#post7618947


----------



## Riley37 (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But people also sometimes seek attention and this kind of incident, especially when the people involved in helping resolve it are crying as well, strikes me as potentially attention seeking.




Well, we're fortunate that no one *here* is attention seeking. Gosh, that would sure be awful; if someone made himself the focus of this thread, that could distract us from thinking about those players in Rolfe's game, and how UK Expo 2019 shifted their experience of TRPG, and whether that's an experience anyone should take active steps to prevent from re-occurring.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Well, we're fortunate that no one *here* is attention seeking. Gosh, that would sure be awful; if someone made himself the focus of this thread, that could distract us from thinking about those players in Rolfe's game, and how UK Expo 2019 shifted their experience of TRPG, and whether that's an experience anyone should take active steps to prevent from re-occurring.




I am just participating in a discussion. I am not trying to make myself the focus.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Riley37 said:


> Hints and innuendos. He's just *wondering* what's going on. What's wrong with wondering? How could anyone object to his curiosity? Open minds, right? He didn't say that THOSE adults were engaged in manipulation. He's aware, of course, that some people have used tears for manipulation. "People have, at various times and places in the last thousand years, used tears for manipulation" is a perfectly cromulent assertion. He's not actually asserting that *those particular people at the con, the ones who just recently heard Rolfe's narration of what men with guns tell their characters* are using tears for manipulation. How could anyone know?
> 
> How indeed, other than tracking them down and interviewing them, as John Dodd did; but can we trust John Dodd's account of his investigation? How could we possibly trust *his explicit declaration, made in his full name, with his hobby status on the line*, over a vague implication of manipulative tears?
> 
> Not that crying for effect is a gendered trope (the femme fatale employing the Wounded Gazelle Gambit). Not that any woman has ever pointed out that she's called an ice-cold bitch if she *doesn't* cry, and a fragile weakling if she *does* cry. I didn't say anything about gender. You can't fairly infer that from context. My intentions are good. Trust me!




You are projecting all kinds of things onto my posts. I haven't attacked you at all. You've been very rude to me most of this thread, because we disagree over how best to handle an incident in the gaming community, and I haven't said anything back to you that I feel is negative. But I will point out, this is exactly the kind of cruelty I am talking about. People think because they believe they are so right, they can be nasty to other people.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

MarkB said:


> First, some traumas are a lot more commonplace than others. Second, you don't need to have experienced rape in order to find it highly disturbing when someone describes it happening to a character whose reactions you are portraying.




People get mugged and violently assaulted all the time too. People are murdered, people have relatives who are close to them murdered. These things feature into games all the time. Someone who was violently robbed is probably going to have strong reactions to imagery that trigger that memory. But in games we routinely have bandits attempt to rob the party or have monsters or NPCs attack the party. No one would say this is because people are being insensitive to victims of violent theft.  

I am not saying people should be raping their characters. I don't like that kind of stuff in my games. I once had a player try to have their character remove an NPCs clothing by force, and I told them I didn't want that kind of stuff in my game. But I can definitely see how in an 18+ game, a GM might think it is fair to explore that theme. And again, if they want to kick him out of the con, I think they can do so. I just don't think the hobby needs to make sure this guy never GMs at another con. Especially since this was the first time anything like this seems to have happened with him. And I don't know that the best solution to this sort of thing is making everyone use an X card (I just am not convinced that this actually helps people).


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2019)

You can't argue basic human decency into somebody dead set against it, and it's a waste of time and energy to keep trying. 

At a certain point you have to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Gradine said:


> You can't argue basic human decency into somebody dead set against it, and it's a waste of time and energy to keep trying.
> 
> At a certain point you have to stop feeding the troll.




I am not dead set against human decency and I am not a troll.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> You are projecting all kinds of things onto my posts. I haven't attacked you at all. You've been very rude to me most of this thread, because we disagree over how best to handle an incident in the gaming community, and I haven't said anything back to you that I feel is negative. But I will point out, this is exactly the kind of cruelty I am talking about. People think because they believe they are so right, they can be nasty to other people.



No, you're being a dingus and everybody else has been rightfully calling you out on it. Most of those people have been mincing their words, but I won't, so here goes. You ing suck, my dear .

It would help if your arguments didn't oh so closely echo a certain subset of the population overly represented in the gaming community that is bona fide, out-and-out misogynistic, racist, and otherwise discriminatory, xenophobic, and just plain uncouth. Even if you profess that you aren't those things yourself, I'm more confident in judging you by the company you keep than by the words that come out of your mouth. Because you have given us absolutely no reason to believe that you're arguing in good faith and that you aren't just some pathetic slimeball shitbag desperately trying to hold onto the edge of the cliff that is an antiquated and hostile worldview that is crumbling day by day as it is more and more being exposed as ethically abhorrent.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> No, you're being a dingus and everybody else has been rightfully calling you out on it. Most of those people have been mincing their words, but I won't, so here goes. You ing suck, my dear .
> 
> It would help if your arguments didn't oh so closely echo a certain subset of the population overly represented in the gaming community that is bona fide, out-and-out misogynistic, racist, and otherwise discriminatory, xenophobic, and just plain uncouth. Even if you profess that you aren't those things yourself, I'm more confident in judging you by the company you keep than by the words that come out of your mouth. Because you have given us absolutely no reason to believe that you're arguing in good faith and that you aren't just some pathetic slimeball shitbag desperately trying to hold onto the edge of the cliff that is an antiquated and hostile worldview that is crumbling day by day as it is more and more being exposed as ethically abhorrent.




Again, this is projection. I am definitely not xenophobic or racist. Nor am I misogynistic. Obviously I don't share many of the key ideological assumptions present on this thread. But I am on the left and none of the things you accuse me of. And I would just draw a line once again to the degree of moral certainty people seem to be feeling and their ability to be rude and cruel.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay, I think I am being fairly mild here.




The question isn't about severity.  It is about the logic and form of the argument.



> And I am not trying to say bad things about people to bolster a position.




Oh, most times it isn't like Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache, going, "BWAHAHAHA!  Now I will say bad things about people!"  It is usually quite casual and seems reasonable until someone puts a spotlight on it.

You specifically pointed out how you think their testimony came from a desire to seek attention, and thereby *dismissed* it.  You ascribed a personality trait to someone you've minimal information about, so that you could disregard something that would undercut your position.  Classic _ad hominem_.  Rhetorical weak sauce.  You may disregard testimony when the speaker is obviously biased in some way, but to just decide they happen to be untrustworthy for no evidentiary reason is not cool.

And I daresay, your appraisal of their character is suspect - subject to confirmation bias.  Pretty convenient, that the person saying things that undercut you *just happens* to be lying, isn't it?  Your *feeling* about them is apt to be colored by your desired narrative, whether you like it or not.



> When it comes to the crying, I am not trying to attack the person in question. But my honest reaction to a group of adults crying in that kind of situation (especially when the criers include the game convention personnel sorting out the problem) is this does not seem like normal adult behavior to me.




My wife is a rape survivor.  I cannot, within the rules of EN World, relay her opinion of that statement.

You could turn this around for a moment.  For just a moment - accept what they say is true, and accept that they are not particularly abnormal.  Just for sake of argument.

What does that say about the experience they had?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Umbran said:


> My wife is a rape survivor.  I cannot, within the rules of EN World, relay her opinion of that statement.
> 
> You could turn this around for a moment.  For just a moment - accept what they say is true, and accept that they are not particularly abnormal.  Just for sake of argument.
> 
> What does that say about the experience they had?




I think people are mixing up what I am saying here. I am not saying a rape survivor crying is abnormal. I am saying a group of people crying in that way, together, as half of them are in a position of authority handling the situation, strikes me as very non-adult. I am saying something about the interview sets off alarm bells for me. You don't have to share that feeling. But I don't have to adopt your interpreting of it either.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think people are mixing up what I am saying here. I am not saying a rape survivor crying is abnormal. I am saying a group of people crying in that way, together, as half of them are in a position of authority handling the situation, strikes me as very non-adult. I am saying something about the interview sets off alarm bells for me. You don't have to share that feeling. But I don't have to adopt your interpreting of it either.




There is, strangely, a rather wide chasm between "We should trust that they feel what they feel and we are not in a position to argue otherwise." and "They're a bunch of whiny babies."

I have no idea why there would be such a difference between these positions though.  

Also, your continued mischaracterization of the situation is annoying.  In case my sarcastic tone was unclear.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> There is, strangely, a rather wide chasm between "We should trust that they feel what they feel and we are not in a position to argue otherwise." and "They're a bunch of whiny babies."
> 
> I have no idea why there would be such a difference between these positions though.
> 
> Also, your continued mischaracterization of the situation is annoying.  In case my sarcastic tone was unclear.




I was giving my reaction of an account of the situation that I had just been pointed to. And that fed into some points about a broader discussion over gaming community issues. All I was saying about it was that particular moment raised my suspicions and it just seemed an odd reaction to me. It doesn’t mean I think the account is flat wrong. The account by the GM also has things in it that raise my suspicions. My view of this stuff is it can take time to weigh and consider conflicting accounts. I doubt there is any deliberate deception here but people do often focus on the things they want to see, read situations differently, etc.

also if you think I have mischaracterized something feel free to point it out. There is a lot of information in the story and totally possible I got something wrong.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> There is, strangely, a rather wide chasm between "We should trust that they feel what they feel and we are not in a position to argue otherwise." and "They're a bunch of whiny babies."




I am not saying people are whiny babies. And in this particular case I have only a vague description of cries being had by all. I don’t know who is a survivor of what in the scenario. But the thing that makes me pause is there is an entire group of adults crying over content that arose in the game. If it were just the person at the table, it would make more sense to me. But I think there is s more nuanced spectrum between the two poles you present.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> also if you think I have mischaracterized something feel free to point it out. There is a lot of information in the story and totally possible I got something wrong.




I would....but several people much more familiar with the situation have already been attempting to do that and my mild amusement at your resistance to their efforts has worn out.

So, no.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying people are whiny babies.




Well, you should probably pick between if you're going to engage in an honest discussion or if you'd like to be known as a liar.  Why?

Well because these are your words:


Bedrockgames said:


> I think people are mixing up what I am saying here. I am not saying a rape survivor crying is abnormal. *I am saying a group of people crying* in that way, together, as half of them are in a position of authority handling the situation, *strikes me as very non-adult*. I am saying something about the interview sets off alarm bells for me. You don't have to share that feeling. But I don't have to adopt your interpreting of it either.



Now, I don't know about you, but typically when you say people are "crying like non-adults" that's a overly verbose way of saying "crying like babies".

So your choice, are you a liar or a liar?


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 12, 2019)

Can't believe I just spent an hour reading this thread.  I'm so creeped out that I struggle to type in complete sentences.

Re:  Calling it satire or "not for kids" makes it okay.  Right? Amirite?
Re:  If you're offended, that's your problem
Re:  "attention seeking" survivors of violence
Re:  deciding how others should react to this or anything else
Re:  the inevitable _ad hominem_ fallacy
Re:  "Let's have an Honest DiscussionTM about this"

Nope.  All the nope.  This is all garbage and you know it.  
Some folks should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> Re:  "attention seeking" survivors of violence




The player interviewed who I was reacting to never mentioned being a survivor of sexual violence in the interview. It is possible this person is a sexual violence survivor. But I don't think we can leap to that conclusion (unless I missed something in the interview). I did see in the interview that the player was given a job with the con establishing safety guidelines in the wake of this. Again, to me some of these things just raise red flags.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> So your choice, are you a liar or a liar?




Or I am just not expressing myself well. Sometimes it isn't easy to post responses in these threads. Especially when it is an emotional and controversial subject.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> No, you're being a dingus and everybody else has been rightfully calling you out on it. Most of those people have been mincing their words, but I won't, so here goes. You ing suck, my dear .





*That language is inappropriate, and unacceptable.  Do not post in this thread again.

Anyone else think they want to try to push the limits?  This person is getting booted from the thread.  The next will probably get a vacation from the site, with no warning or prior discussion.  If you cannot figure out that you need to be on your best behavior when having a sensitive discussion, you have no business in the discussion*.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> The player interviewed who I was reacting to never mentioned being a survivor of sexual violence in the interview.It is possible this person is a sexual violence survivor. But I don't think we can leap to that conclusion (unless I missed something in the interview).




Dude.  If it was a woman, you don't have to leap, because of the statistics involved.

One in five women are raped at some point in their lives.  43% of heterosexual women report experiencing some sexual violence other than rape.*  This stuff is so darned common, they don't even have to experience it to have a valid strong reaction, because they live in fear of it throughout their lives.

And you claim to be compassionate?  How much effort do you want to put into trying to justify discounting the testimony?

But then again, I suppose it isn't a whole lot of effort.  All you have to do is type.  So, so easy for you.  



*Statistics from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2015.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2019)

Flying ad-hominems abounding?
Profanity filter triggering?
Opening of painful personal or near-personal wounds?

Methinks it’s time to put this one down...until it rises again.


----------

