Harassment in gaming

[Jabborwacky]

This is absolutely true, but to me it simply highlights why there needs to be room to ask questions. The process of doing so absolutely must be done with care, but I cannot truly help someone if I don't at least know the basics of the problem and why they feel like harassment occurred. If I am helping run a convention, I almost certainly have multiple tools at my disposal to help them, but I cannot know which one is going to be most effective if I can't find out more than the fact that someone feels like it happened and that they are a victim.

I absolutely agree. Just recently when I thought I was being harassed on the forums here, I gave those in charge as much information as I could on the incident. In fact, sometimes a person in one of these situations will give you more than you actually need. I like to emphasize being supportive since it really opens the door to resolving the issue.

 

[Taneras]

Let me see if I have this right:

If a story of women scheming against men can be found via a Google search, then it's true because you believe it's true.

If a woman relates stories of harassment of herself or other women, which can also be found on a Google search, then we had better be careful not to "drop everything and simply believe anything that we're told."

No, a story of women scheming to manufacture false allegations against a man becomes true when the evidence leads you to that conclusion; Google, my mention of the victim's name, and the country this took place in was included to ground this instance in reality and allow people to look into it themselves - if they cared to.

And no, any cases of anyone being harassed/sexually assaulted/raped that, like the above case that I mentioned, have evidence to back their claims should also be believed (duh).

My call for caution came in, and I'm pretty sure I made that perfectly clear, when we simply *just* believe whatever we're told. And yes, there are elements of our community who are demanding that we do just that.

I think people would be more likely to consider your arguments on their merits if you afforded the same respect and legitimacy to women and the problems they are raising through blog posts and similar online (and doing so, unlike you, by using their real names and not hiding behind a screen name/alias) that you seem to expect from the rest of us each time you relate an anecdotal counterexample that requires people to go see for themselves.

What have I said that suggests that I'm pushing for different standards between men and women on this issue? I noticed you snipped out a portion of one of my quotes where I said that I'm sure that men do the same sort of collusion all the time - which would suggest the same level of caution at just believing what that group of college guys claimed happened as well.

I wasn't using "endemic" as a noun. I was using it as an adjective.

Maybe you're confusing it with a word like "pandemic."

Let me rephrase the question, what constitutes something as "endemic"? Where's the threshold between a rarity and something that's commonly found/seen?

As to your question: there's no good reason to believe that all women who relate instances of harassment, or otherwise being made to feel uncomfortable and powerless, are lying, much less that they are somehow conspiring in secret

Thankfully I don't believe that they're all lying.

just as there is not good reason to assume male gamers are lying when they say, "Oh, I enjoyed the Con," or "Dude, my DM in the last game was an ass. Skip that guy if you see him."

There's a difference between a woman being called a whore, or being groped, and someone's opinions about an event or DM. The former is objective and the latter is subjective. Believing a subjective claim is just accepting that someone is honest about their opinion on something. Believing an objective claim, with respect to what we're discussing, is believing someone else is guilty of something. There's a big difference with accepting someone's subjective experiences and believing someone's objective claims.

"But we must have objective proof!" you say (and keep saying, in various ways, in this thread and the last one), or "But here's an example where women were in the wrong!" you say (again, in various ways, in this thread and the last one).

I just have to ask: are you suggesting, Taneras, that as a rule women are not to be trusted?

I think that people lie often enough, exaggerate claims often enough, and are mistaken enough to be cautious about just listening and believing. I'll ask again, why do you think I'm singling out a certain gender here?

Do you know what a hidden claim is?

A fancy way to put words in someone's mouth?

 

[Green1]

Geesh.

I can see why Youtubers like Anita Sarkeesian and Thunderf00t are making bank of this stuff. 34 pages!

Bottom line, any time you deal with the public, you can encounter socially maladjusted idiots and misanthropes.

Yeah, it's fun to fantasize about "being right" and the evil, opposing faction being marginalized or punished.

But, this is "the public". Public sessions draw out people at every point in their development The proverbial entitled dude who dreams of gamer chick "asking for it" after a few beers and proverbial lady who is offended even being in a guy's presence. Fortunately, the extremes are uncommon. They are just the most vocal And, people DO mess up AND learn. Just because someone does not know how to act socially does not mean they can't learn. Just because someone does have issues towards some group or gender does not mean they don't change outlook. Do you still believe the same way you did 10 years ago? People evolve.

There is a solution though that does not involve witch hunts or creating privileged classes at public game venues. Ones the individual can control. Actually learning social skills if you are socially maladjusted and actually getting to the bottom of why you group one gender (or group of people) as evil if a misanthrope. Hell, an EXCELLENT reason to go to a con! It's a great place to learn to socialize when you are thrown around people you do not know!

....And LEAVE if you encounter either of these... There are other groups at any con.You DO NOT have to hang with anyone, for any reason you see fit. It's also a great idea to not be crap faced around strangers. It is also a great idea (to quote the Satanists, of all people) to only mate when the mating signal is given AND not give this signal just for attention. LEAVE anyone who does any of these!

I mean, what guy really wants to be around a lady who flirts and kisses on you then turns cold after she got all the attention from you? What girl wants to hang around a table while some awkward idiot wants to grab her coochie and act out ERP while she really just wanted to hit Armor Class 20 and participate in a cool story and have a cocktail after? Unless people just like being mad or likethis for some sick reason, LEAVE!

And, if it is illegal or assault... we have laws and cops society pays taxes for. It's not perfect, no. But, it was created so we would not have folks walking up and raping folks, punching people, and taking stuff because they can.

It would save so much issues.

You can only expect the Con runners to kick out those who cross extreme lines. And, no con runner wants cops up in a venue. It is not the Con runner's job to hold your hand.

Responsibility.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My post was in context to the poster I was quoting. Maybe its not what he actually meant, but it seemed as though he was suggesting that expressing doubt/criticism to a victim in regards to their claims is a good idea when in reality it is the opposite.

To help a victim, be supportive and non-critical of them. At the very least they believe such harassment really did occur, and there are likely other factors involved that are not public knowledge. The victim may have survived a war, made a suicide attempt in his/her teens, or possess some other form of emotional trauma exacerbating the situation. Something that would never effect you could well effect someone else.

And here I deleted three paragraphs for slipping into my own issues as a result of just talking about this stuff. It's tough talking about any kind of harassment when you happen to be a person who was harassed into nearly killing himself at a young age. From a person who survived this stuff: Like anything where the damage is psychological more so than physical, its hard to create a single definition encompassing all instances of harassment. That same complexity makes it difficult to spot.

Been there- black man living in the southern USA.

The point remains, though: however delicately it must be handled, those charged with peacekeeping can't do their job with zero info. The more intel they gather, the better decisions they can make, and that means talking to all involved. Sometimes, those questions can get uncomfortable. But they still have to be asked.

And always, as a practical matter, any investigation security or police or HR makes is per force going to be time-pressured in some sense.

Which means that any situation is going to involve a tug of war between the goals of getting something resolved NOW vs getting something resolved CORRECTLY.

 

[Morrus]

Which means that any situation is going to involve a tug of war between the goals of getting something resolved NOW vs getting something resolved CORRECTLY.

And of course the severity of the consequences is a part of that. If you're depriving someone of life or liberty, then the balance is way in favour of correct. If you're jut having a word with somebody, the balance is way in favour of now.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Exactly. You HAVE to balance the consequences of a given potential action with inaction...and that requires info.

 

[sunshadow21]

And of course the severity of the consequences is a part of that. If you're depriving someone of life or liberty, then the balance is way in favour of correct. If you're jut having a word with somebody, the balance is way in favour of now.

That's true, but threatening to throw someone out of the con because of what turns out be nothing more than a simple unintentional misunderstanding because you favor now over correct a bit too much is also something that needs to be avoided. There are almost always other solutions that can be applied quickly and effectively once more information is gathered beyond the initial sentiment of I'm being harassed.

 

[Imperialus]

I didn't call her a liar! I said I think the events in the ++++ sections are fictional. I don't know to what extent the author intended for people to realize this or not. I say this for three reasons:
a) they're completely implausible
b) they're inserted into the article without any preamble or clarification about their veracity
c) the author is a fanfic writer and they read like fanfic

Well at least one of the stories can be confirmed here:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/taking-a-stand-against-abuse-284204591.html

*edit* just noticed someone else posted this wayy back in the thread.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

And no, any cases of anyone being harassed/sexually assaulted/raped that, like the above case that I mentioned, have evidence to back their claims should also be believed (duh).

I want to make sure I understand you here: if a woman can't produce evidence of harassment or abuse while at a gaming venue, she should not be believed?

What have I said that suggests that I'm pushing for different standards between men and women on this issue? I noticed you snipped out a portion of one of my quotes...

Snipping text is a way of reducing the footprint of a quote, so that readers don't have to scroll through a fat portion of text that's already been posted, just to get to the new response (something some folks around here are really bad about).

Regardless, I wasn't trying to hide anything. Your posts are your posts. I can't edit it them and they're visible to everyone.

As to your question: for two long threads now you've continually brought up examples of women supposedly pulling the same kind of objectionable behavior that men undertake, and then advised that we all remain skeptical of claims of harassment (or worse) from women.

That's a false comparison, to the point of being morally and ethically objectionable.

Look, some women engage in harassing behavior.

And some women experience harassment and sexual abuse at Cons.

These are two different categories of people. No, really, they are in fact two different categories.

Could there be overlap between them? Sure.

However, by likening one group with the other to the point that you would advise Con staff be skeptical of claims of harassment, you are suggesting the area of overlap is extensive.

Where is the evidence for this, beyond your own opinion?

Worse, the more you press your argument, the more you erode the idea that a woman's word, by itself, is good enough to merit immediate and swift action by staff to correct a problem.

I can't speak to your intentions, because I can't read your mind. But I can say with confidence that the net effect of your arguments is to weaken the position of women in gaming.

Let me rephrase the question, what constitutes something as "endemic"? Where's the threshold between a rarity and something that's commonly found/seen?

We're long past the point of asking this question. Harassment and abuse of women in gaming is a major problem. The majority of harassers are male.

A fancy way to put words in someone's mouth?

No, it's a way to skip over a problematic part of an argument and go straight to the conclusion.

The core of Rygar's argument is that a proactive harassment policy means there is a potential for people to abuse the system, such that a Magic the Gathering player (for example) could lose a tournament via a pair of accusations of harassment.

His remedy? "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint."

In other words, reduce the value of the voice of people who are harassed. This means the value of a woman's voice is reduced, because women are the subject of the majority of harassment.

How in the hell is a woman's voice worth less than the value of a Magic tournament win? The mere suggestion is morally reprehensible. And so is the idea that Con staff should be forced to take the position that the word of every single woman who was in fact harassed is no longer good enough to take action. (Every man, too, now that I think about it.)

Your arguments and Rygar's argument merely work to reduce the voice of women in gaming. They also serve to drive women from this website.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's true, but threatening to throw someone out of the con because of what turns out be nothing more than a simple unintentional misunderstanding because you favor now over correct a bit too much is also something that needs to be avoided. There are almost always other solutions that can be applied quickly and effectively once more information is gathered beyond the initial sentiment of I'm being harassed.

Which is why you talk to all known parties before action is taken (unless- as noted- security, etc. actually witness the incident).