• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

North Texas RPG Convention Refuses To Listen To Harassment Concerns

Harassment in gaming is getting more and more attention as gamers are making the stand that they will not support sexual harassment, the harassment of the LGBTQ+ or people of color. In the latest controversy over dealing with harassment at conventions, the North Texas RPG Convention, a self-styled old school gaming convention, has decided to take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harassment in gaming is getting more and more attention as gamers are making the stand that they will not support sexual harassment, the harassment of the LGBTQ+ or people of color. In the latest controversy over dealing with harassment at conventions, the North Texas RPG Convention, a self-styled old school gaming convention, has decided to take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces.


After people emailed the convention organizers to voice concern that alleged harassers Frog God Games CEO Bill Webb and former TSR editor and designer Frank Mentzer were being kept on the rolls as special guests at the next North Texas RPG Convention. One of the organizers of the convention made the following public statement in response to these concerns: "So here is my stance on the subject: Everyone is allowed to come to the Con." He then went on to say "I don't care if a member of ISIS or the most wanted person in a [sic] America comes to the Con, as long as they are there to game, and everything is about gaming. I have asked people to leave the Con when I find them debating politics and/or religion at the gaming table. (so what do you think I'd do if I observed any sexual harassment ?) Thus anything not gaming related can get you removed from the Con."

Here are screen shots of post, for those who don't want to click through the above links.


More conventions, gaming and otherwise, are taking a stance to protect those who attend them by crafting policies against harassment. Gen Con's harassment policy, from the Gen Con website, is simple: "Gen Con: The Best Four Days in Gaming! is dedicated to providing a harassment-free Event experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or affiliation. We do not tolerate harassment of convention participants in any form. Convention participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled without refund at the discretion of show management." Other conventions have written policies making it an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission.

Pelgrane Press, publisher of games like Trail of Cthulhu and Night's Black Agents has created a harassment policy for officially sanctioned events at conventions or stores. "We want conventions to be safe and inclusive spaces for all gamers. Unfortunately, we know of too many instances where our colleagues, customers and friends have been harassed or made to feel uncomfortable at gaming conventions. We believe strongly that having a policy in place which explicitly censures harassing behaviour, and provides a clear procedure for reporting any such incidents, creates a safer and more welcoming environment for people at the greatest risk of harassment." Their policy goes on to say "As such, Pelgrane Press will not exhibit at, or provide support for, conventions which don’t have a publicly posted and enforced anti-harassment policy." Other publishers are taking this path, in order to make sure that their fans are safe while playing their games at conventions or in stores as well.

There is more to safety at a convention than slips and falls. Making sure that convention attendees are not harassed physically, emotionally or sexually is just as much of a safety issue as any other physical concerns. Not only that, by not making a strong stand against potential harassment sends a message to women, the LGBTQ+ and people of color that their safety is not as important to the convention as that of other people. It makes it hard to state that all people are equally as welcome to a convention, when the convention refuses to make policies that will protect everyone at a convention.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
Can you explain how the organizer's response was objectively inadequate? I'm afraid I don't understand that.

Yeah, he said no tolerance for anything outside gaming, harassment included. Seems good to me. Apparently he's not going to ban people over twitter controversy and accusations but will boot you if your behavior at his Con is lacking. I'm fine with that. Obviously others aren't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sunsword

Adventurer
If you are concerned with getting the facts right, why did you not also report that only 1 person in the RPG.Net thread mentioned shutting down the convention and they got slapped down by both a moderator and pretty much everyone else on the thread?

I left the thread. Didn't know it got locked down. Thanks for trying to escalate.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
As I understand the term to be used in this sort of context, "listening" generally means making a concerted effort to put yourself in the speaker's place and understand what they are trying to communicate at more than a superficial level.

That's not "listening", it's "empathy". Totally different words. Not synonyms in any way. If people mean "I wish the convention guy was more empathetic" they should probably say that, rather than "They're not listening". The word "listening" has not in fact changed in it's meaning over time to include empathy.

And if you want to be given credit for listening, since we can't see inside your head, you have to demonstrate that understanding in your response.

He did. He clearly understands what he's responding to. He's directly addressing what was said, in a way that demonstrates he fully comprehended the complaint. He DISAGREES with the complaint. Again, this is not a lack of understanding. There is no miscommunication in terms of him not understanding the complaint. He made it quite clear in his response he understood and comprehended in all the essential ways necessary what was being said.

So when people say he didn't listen, I think they mean he failed in his response to demonstrate an understanding of the concerns of the people to whom he was responding. Moreover, in this case, beyond failing to demonstrate that he did understand, he also gave notable evidence that he did not understand.

He really didn't do any of that. You're trying to use the words "listening" and "understanding" to mean things they don't mean. He heard the complaint (listened). He understood the complaint. He disagrees with a meaningful portion of the complaint. He can disagree with the complaint while hearing it and understanding it. He need not agree with the complaint, or even be empathetic with the complaint, to have listened to it and understood it. If someone in a loud restaurant tells you that you're talking too loud, and you feel your talking in a normal tone and it's appropriate for you to speak in that tone, you can fully listen to and understand their complaint and still respond with, "I am going to continue as I was, and perhaps you should go elsewhere if you want a more quiet atmosphere." Listening and understanding is not actually necessarily connected to agreement and empathy.

To me the first piece of evidence that he probably did not understand was the amount of his RPG.net post that was about himself and self-congratulation. If you are thinking first of yourself, there's much less room left to understand others. Also in that vein, he reacted to criticism by considering it to be an "attack" - yeah, it's all about him. Secondly, the tone of both his responses was quite angry. Generally, it is much more difficult to empathize with someone with whom you don't agree when you are angry. Third, he expressed empathy for a number of categories of offenders, but none for their victims, another circumstance that would generally make it more difficult to understand concerns about sexual harassment. Finally, he seems to lump sexual harassment in with various criminal offenses. This belies either ignorance or dismissal of the ways in which these things marked differ in our society currently. We have not made sexual harassment in general a crime. Therefore, victims cannot count on the full weight of law enforcement to remedy a problem instance. Also, experience shows that as opposed to other forms of harmful behavior, such as punching someone, victims cannot count on the general populace to decisively condemn the behavior, nor to intervene on the victim's behalf.

First, thank you for agreeing you're talking about empathy. Now, why not use that word if that is the word you mean?

Second, again one of the victims has asked that people stop bringing her incident up all the time. Are you not listening to her request? Are you not understanding her request? Do you lack empathy for her position? Or is it...you hear her, you understand her, and you have empathy for her, but despite all those things being true, you still think there is greater value in bringing it up as a means to protect others?

Had Mr. Rhea been able to get past the hurdle of avoiding saying things that actively indicated his incomprehension, then among the things that he could have said as positive indicators of his understanding would have been to acknowledge that a position of power or privilege is a key enabler of sexual harassers, and therefore by granting Mr. Mentzer and Mr. Webb special guest status in the very same type of environment where they had previously caused problems, he was risking being complicit should they commit like offenses at his convention. On the other hand, someone who was willing to acknowledge that would probably much less readily dismiss the notion of uninviting them, or at least taking some sort of special precautions.

Or...and this is the difficult part...he disagrees. It is possible for a person to not agree with your perspective of these issues, while still listening to your perspective and understanding your perspective and even, perhaps, having empathy for your perspective. Much like I think you do with the victim who has asked you to stop bringing up the Mentzer incident. It's possible for people to disagree with your perspective, and not want to do what you want them to do, while still hearing and understanding the issues in play just as well as you hear and understand the issues in play.

It's this apparent belief that, if people hear and understand, then they will inherently agree, that seems to be the confusing part for many on these kinds of issues. As if there is one objective truth concerning subjective and complex issues like this one, and if only people heard and understand all the facts of course they would all agree with one way of seeing those events. That's not reality though. Complex issues usually get complex and varied responses from people who are different than each other, have different life experiences and knowledge and wisdom and all the things that make humans up. It's OK for people to not think like you on comlex issues. Sometimes you will be right and they wrong, and sometimes you will be wrong and they right, and sometimes (often) you will both be right and/or both be wrong in different ways and from different perspectives.

So, disagree with the guy if that's where you are at. But...try to use your own powers of listening and understanding and empathy to accept the possibility he also is hearing and understanding and empathizing but coming to a different conclusion than you are based on his different perspective. And maybe his conclusion is wrong. But, he might still be listening and understanding and even empathizing when he gets to that wrong conclusion.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Yeah, he said no tolerance for anything outside gaming, harassment included. Seems good to me. Apparently he's not going to ban people over twitter controversy and accusations but will boot you if your behavior at his Con is lacking. I'm fine with that. Obviously others aren't.

I don't know the guy, never heard of him before this thread, and don't particularly care because I was never going to his con in the first place. So take this with a grain of salt.

I think the concern is that he has appointed himself the sole arbitrator if what is and is not acceptable behavior at his convention.

If you don't trust him to have a definition of "acceptable behavior" that matches yours, you may not feel that that some guy saying "Trust me, I'll take care of it" is good enough.

You may consider something sexual harassment, he may consider it "harmless fun" or say "boys will be boys, it's over now, get back to gaming". People have different tolerances for this sort of thing, and he seems to be on the "don't be a whiner" side of things.

There is also the fact that he is just one person - he can't be everywhere at once and if an incident occurs that he doesn't witness, it is now "he said, she said". Do you trust him to be an unbiased arbiter of events he hasn't witnessed? Or do you fear he's more likely to be biased in favor if the person being accused?

What if the person being accused is a friend of his, and he "knows" they wouldn't do anything like that. Do you think he'd boot the person claiming to be harassed because they are being "disruptive" and now their behavior is lacking?

I don't know the guy. Do you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Thanks for letting me know about this gaming convention. It's nice to see one finally be run by someone who cares more about gaming than giving into the SJW clowns who everyone hates.

New account just for this post, eh? Just to throw the term "SJW clowns" around? Do not use pejorative names to describe other people in this thread (or post in the thread again).
 

OmeniaPhil

First Post
I don't know the guy, never heard of him before this thread, and don't particularly care because I was never going to his con in the first place. So take this with a grain of salt.

I think the concern is that he has appointed himself the sole arbitrator if what is and is not acceptable behavior at his convention.

Correct. He's the owner so he is indeed the sole arbitrator of what is acceptable.

If you don't trust him to have a definition of "acceptable behavior" that matches yours, you may not feel that that some guy saying "Trust me, I'll take care of it" is good enough.

If it's not good enough, you're free not to attend.

You may consider something sexual harassment, he may consider it "harmless fun" or say "boys will be boys, it's over now, get back to gaming". People have different tolerances for this sort of thing, and he seems to be on the "don't be a whiner" side of things.

Correct. He's there to put on a gaming convention, not to thought-police his paying attendees.

There is also the fact that he is just one person - he can't be everywhere at once and if an incident occurs that he doesn't witness, it is now "he said, she said". Do you trust him to be an unbiased arbiter of events he hasn't witnessed? Or do you fear he's more likely to be biased in favor if the person being accused? What if the person being accused is a friend of his, and he "knows" they wouldn't do anything like that. Do you think he'd boot the person claiming to be harassed because they are being "disruptive" and now their behavior is lacking.

I don't know the guy. Do you?

You sure sound like you know the guy's ulterior motives.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Can you explain how the organizer's response was objectively inadequate? I'm afraid I don't understand that.

I believe that the post I quoted earlier from Harzel more than adequately covers that, far more clearly and succinctly than I could hope to. Concerns about past conduct from several invitees were casually dismissed as if they didn't matter at all (we can throw around the term "alleged" in scare quotes all day long but, at least in the case of Bill Webb, these aren't really facts in dispute). Concerns about the lack of an established zero tolerance policy were rejoined with "I have a gun and I don't allow non-gaming discussion" (concerns listed in the front page, which note rightly that complaining about harassment is also "non-gaming discussion" have gone entirely unanswered). Plenty of other cons, big and small, have instituted zero tolerance policies regarding harassment. That is the appropriate and adequate response. Others up-thread have also delineated what an appropriate and adequate response is to the invited guests issues, even if he ultimately disagreed with dis-inviting them (e.g; "Our con has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to harassment, and we have reminded all of our invited guests, including Mssrs. Webb and Mentzner, that will be strictly enforcing this policy."). That might not be enough for some people, but it would be miles better than what we actually got. I sympathize that this guy runs this relatively small (in size at least) con on a volunteer basis and that he's not an industry person himself, but by the look of the guest list this is actually a decently big deal and both it and his attendees deserve a bit more professionalism than is currently on display.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
[MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] - Thanks for the explanation. I think that's a great example of a subjectively inadequate response. I also think you are mis-interpreting some of his statements, but that is a subjective interpretation of his response on my part, too.
 

You may consider something sexual harassment, he may consider it "harmless fun" or say "boys will be boys, it's over now, get back to gaming". People have different tolerances for this sort of thing, and he seems to be on the "don't be a whiner" side of things.

This is also because most men, and some women, are clueless as to when their behavior crosses the line from "harmless fun" to "harassment". You may think you just told a harmless, yet dirty, joke or made a comment you did not think was bad, but others around you may have been offended and label you as a harasser. This kind of thing is especially dangerous in a work environment these days.

Also, this forum is not just for people in Texas. What people in Texas may consider "harmless fun" is probably illegal in places like California and New York and in some other countries. While in other countries, that "harmless fun" would get the woman punished for being too provocative and causing the man to behave that way.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top