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.

View attachment 90678​

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.

View attachment 90679


View attachment 90680​

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.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No I don't know him, and yes he has appointed himself the final arbitrator of what is acceptable at the Con he runs. If I was running a Con that is how I would do it. My Con, my rules. If enough people don't like the rules the Con may go belly up unless I change them, or it maybe too late by then. He's the one who runs it. If you want a statement that says if you are accused of harassing someone you are booted no questions asked it doesn't look like that is how he runs it, he might ask questions before deciding what action to take. Fine with me. If I don't like it I won't go. Apparently if you are there to game he doesn't care much for anything else you do outside the Con, though I'd guess the ISIS line is just hyperbole. Maybe not, maybe he'd be fine with Kim Jong-un running a 1e game but I doubt that.

 

[Nekkroe]

So have these two been convicted of anything? ANYONE...? -rrrrrrrrriiiiight.

 

[Celebrim]

We've known for quite some time what harassment is, what it looks like, and have, largely, come to an agreement as to how properly address concerns regarding harassment, whether every individual demand is followed or otherwise.

I'm going to largely ignore that, because it's irrelevant and in fact the reason these topics are so explosive is that we haven't in any fashion come to that agreement. We are in the midst of a great cultural upheaval and the rules of civil behavior were thrown out the window, and we were told that morality was subjective, and now in the lurch we are trying to define a new set of rules - and hopefully we will stumble or way to a better place, but maybe not, and probably not without making a bunch of mistakes a long the way. Even if I was willing to address that part, I can't actually do so at EnWorld, because such debates politics, religion and the fundamentals of our cultural institutions aren't supposed to be occurring here.

But what I can address in this forum is the rest of your claims.

First, it was the spirit of the article that I was responding to, and not any minor points of syntax or fuzziness of semantics. That ought to be obvious because I address the article metaphorically, casting an indictment against it's spirit by way of that metaphor. I did not engage with the sloppy logic or deceptive arguments of the article itself, which are just as bad, but are only specifically bad. The fact that his logic is sloppy and his argument is deceptive does not in and of itself mean that the point of it is wrong. But by attacking the spirit of the article, I was showing that it was not only objectively wrong, but wholly wrong.

But let's address the specifics that you are "begrudgingly admitting" to and I'll try to answer why the semantics "appear to still be in dispute" which apparently baffles you.

Let's break down the original essay into it's major points, and I think in doing so we'll see why it's such a nasty spirited piece of work.

1) Some people voiced concern about Bill Webb and Frank Mentzer attending the convention.
2) The convention organizer responded with a lengthy statement that he would not discriminate against anyone on the basis of past behavior, real or perceived. Instead, people would be judged according to their behavior at the convention, and as long as they wanted to game they'd be allowed to do so.
3) The fact that other conventions have adopted policies is mentioned, including policies that specify "it an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission."
4) A thesis is given, "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."

Now I want you to notice the most important fact about the structure of this essay. Points #3 and #4 have nothing at all to do with points #1 and #2. Having written standards about harassment have nothing to do with the concerns raised in point #1, nor would such standards have anything to do with whether the persons in question could attend a convention. At least as stated, so far as I can tell they would not. There is no logical connection between the first half of the essay and the second half. Normally, in an essay you present evidence to support your point, but regardless of how you arrange the essay the bottom half isn't evidence of the top nor is the top evidence for the bottom. What is actually going on is a deliberate conflation of two very different things. In effect the essay, quite wholly without evidence and in my opinion largely in rational defiance of the material it presents as evidence is essentially making the claim that the convention organizers supports harassment at the convention.

Now aside from that, the practicality of a policy that says that at a convention "it is an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission" is laughable. Have you tried to navigate a convention center with 30,000 people in it? I thought you said we'd agreed to what 'harrassment' is? I assure you that it is rather more than just "touch other convention goers without their permission". Such definitions to me don't take the problem seriously enough, since they fail to distinguish between objectionable behavior and someone brushing my elbow unintentionally as they go past - which probably happens 100 times to everyone. Such standards hinder rather than help the problem.

 

[Gradine]

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.

This... this is an excellent point And you're right. I think it's really easy (and really tempting) to jump to conclusions about a person's intentions based on their actions, but you're right that perhaps we are being a little unfair to this guy. And I'll be the first person to jump on the "the impact of your actions is way more important than your intentions" train. I do believe that is conclusions are wrong, wrong enough that they are actively harmful to his con's attendees (particularly those who would be most subjected to harassment). And I think it's important to continue that conversation. But I, for one, could probably stand to be a bit more empathetic and compassionate to the poor guy. You don't create teaching moments by demonizing your students.

 

[Caliban]

So have these two been convicted of anything? ANYONE...? -rrrrrrrrriiiiight.

Another sock puppet account originally used to pad a review now being used to get around being banned from the thread? I think so.

 

[fjw70]

You are aware that everyone is a potential harasser?
And he is perfectly within his rights to "not give a crap". Its not his job to punish people for alleged misbehaviour (actually alleged misbehaviour shouldn't be punished at all, only proven one). A "everyone is welcome as long as they behave themselves, no matter what they did or might have done in the past" is a perfectly sensible attitude.

Yes he has a right to not give a crap. Just pointing out that he doesn’t give a crap.

I just feel bad for those that go to the con and don’t know he doesn’t give s crap.

 

[Caliban]

No I don't know him, and yes he has appointed himself the final arbitrator of what is acceptable at the Con he runs. If I was running a Con that is how I would do it. My Con, my rules. If enough people don't like the rules the Con may go belly up unless I change them, or it maybe too late by then. He's the one who runs it. If you want a statement that says if you are accused of harassing someone you are booted no questions asked it doesn't look like that is how he runs it, he might ask questions before deciding what action to take. Fine with me. If I don't like it I won't go. Apparently if you are there to game he doesn't care much for anything else you do outside the Con, though I'd guess the ISIS line is just hyperbole. Maybe not, maybe he'd be fine with Kim Jong-un running a 1e game but I doubt that.

Hey, you asked, so I provided some possible reasons. Like I said, I don't particularly care.

But one thing to consider - people like you or me (male, and on the large side) are very unlikely to be harassed. So we have the luxury of not needing to care. His con policies are perfect for people like us, we are unlikely to be targeted and even if we are, we can usually take care of ourselves. (Or go cry in the shower and never tell anyone. Whichever works.)

Now try to imagine if you are female and on the small side. Do you think some guy you've never met saying "don't worry, I've got it handled - I have a gun" is reassuring?

 

[Derren]

I just feel bad for those that go to the con and don’t know he doesn’t give s crap.

And why is that? Because the mere presence of those two will cause everyone at the Con to be harassed? Or does the fact alone that they are hosted by someone who does not bow to the higher moral authority of the internetz cause physical and psychological harm?

 

[Gradine]

I'm going to largely ignore that, because it's irrelevant and in fact the reason these topics are so explosive is that we haven't in any fashion come to that agreement. We are in the midst of a great cultural upheaval and the rules of civil behavior were thrown out the window, and we were told that morality was subjective, and now in the lurch we are trying to define a new set of rules - and hopefully we will stumble or way to a better place, but maybe not, and probably not without making a bunch of mistakes a long the way.

Perhaps poor wording on my part, maybe not so much "we are all in agreement" as there is "a commonly accepted definition of term and behaviors it describes". Just because not everybody has signed on or figured out the program yet doesn't mean that the definition isn't plainly clear. The debate boils down to really three things: the actual, very clear definition of harassment, things that are quite clearly harassment but that some people wish weren't considered so, and hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios blown way out of proportion to justify concern trolling over zero-tolerance harassment policies (for an example, see below).

1) Some people voiced concern about Bill Webb and Frank Mentzer attending the convention.
2) The convention organizer responded with a lengthy statement that he would not discriminate against anyone on the basis of past behavior, real or perceived. Instead, people would be judged according to their behavior at the convention, and as long as they wanted to game they'd be allowed to do so.
3) The fact that other conventions have adopted policies is mentioned, including policies that specify "it an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission."
4) A thesis is given, "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."

1) People with a history of harassment are invited guests to the con.
2) Convention has refused to institute a clear zero-harassment policy, it's co-host instead saying "I have a gun and will intervene in any harassment I personally witness." 500 people is a small con, but that's more than one dude can handle.
3) We have no clue what this individual considers harassment, and there is apparently still debate on this even though the definition should be, for all intents and purposes, clear and understandable. How seriously does he treat the issue? Is making a harassment complaint to him about another con-goer itself an example of "non-gaming discussion"?
4) Those gamers who might be more vulnerable for harassment do not see this con, as many other cons have done, make a clear statement regarding their inclusivity or protection from harassment, and there is a strong possibility that many of them, as a result, may feel less safe.

I mean, you can sum up the main points of an article that ignores the connective tissue. It may very well have been that said connective tissue might have been assumed as a given and not clearly spelled out, I'd have to re-read the article to see for certain. But these are not illogical or "objectively false" leaps. If you actually gave a about harassment or inclusivity in gaming conventions these would actually be probably obvious.

Now aside from that, the practicality of a policy that says that at a convention "it is an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission" is laughable. Have you tried to navigate a convention center with 30,000 people in it? I thought you said we'd agreed to what 'harrassment' is? I assure you that it is rather more than just "touch other convention goers without their permission". Such definitions to me don't take the problem seriously enough, since they fail to distinguish between objectionable behavior and someone brushing my elbow unintentionally as they go past - which probably happens 100 times to everyone. Such standards hinder rather than help the problem.

Remember that bit above about hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios and concern trolling? This is a prime example of this. Yeah, everyone in reality actually understands the difference between accidentally bumping into somebody and groping someone without their consent. Nobody is going to use these policies to get someone thrown out for accidentally backing into somebody, or brushing elbows in passing. I'd ask you to engage in a little less intellectual dishonesty next time.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

[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.

I would like to add that in my completely subjective opinion most people in these types of situations who "misinterpret" do so quite intentionally and with a deliberate goal in mind.