Does "keeping the spotlight on it" mean discussing it in every thread that mentions Frog God?
Action was taken. Frog God responded to it, Paizo responded to it, and the victim responded to it. I understand you and others want more, but I don't think any more is coming from the parties involved. Your choice to boycott their products is, of course, your prerogative. Me? I can buy a book from them and still say I don't approve of sexual harassment. General boycotts are a rabbit hole. I'm happy to speak out and vote with my wallet against supporting content I don't like, such as the Paizo demon book that's been talked about elsewhere. At some point, though, general boycotts hurt well outside of the scope they was intended to affect. I'm not for that.
Yes, it does mean continuing to bring it up until appropriate action has been taken. The action that was taken was Mr. Webb was 'talked to' by Mr. Finch, his friend, colleague, and business partner. I am not convinced that Mr. Finch is the appropriate person to have that conversation. Frog God's response was not enough. I have no issue with Paizo. I understand the victim did not want collateral damage to impact her friends who work at FGG. I don't want that either, but I only have one way to effectively communicate my desire for a more appropriate response to Mr. Webb's behavior.
Mr. Webb is the CEO of the company. Every product that they produce enriches him. It is not a matter of content within the books. I'm a fan of their content. The issue is that I do not want my money to support someone that harasses people with no consequences. Until FGG has Mr. Webb go through an appropriate consequence then I can only give what measure of consequence that is available to me, namely the withholding of my money and my repetition of a call for appropriate action. I understand that form of boycott has collateral damage, but since he is the CEO, I cannot pick and choose products. They all enrich him and I will not be a party to rewarding that behavior.
I will add, without trying to be political, that I don't know of any great social change for the good that was accomplished by people shrugging and saying that an inappropriate behavior being given a talking to was as good as it gets so lets go back to the status quo.
What I am asking for is not hard. Honestly, it's the bare minimum of what should be considered. If Mr. Webb worked in any other company and had a complaint against him for harassment, he would be asked to attend some form of sexual harassment training. If Mr. Webb worked in any other company and had a reputation for drinking to much when representing the company to the public, he would be asked to attend some form of treatment to curb his alcohol consumption. That is, if he wasn't fired. However, the victim expressed that she did not wish to see him fired. Honestly, Mr. Webb has had less consequences for being drunk and harassing a woman while he was representing his business at an industry event than a person who receives a speeding ticket for doing six miles over the limit.
I would love to purchase this book. $50 for a book full of monsters sounds awesome. I would love to support Rappan Athuk. I'm kind of itching to run a dungeon crawl. However, Mr. Webb has to experience some kind of consequence for his behavior, and his employees and business partners should care enough for their friend, their business, and their reputation to go the extra mile to make sure their friend is not in a situation again where things might go worse and restore trust within the community they've built.
