• 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

OmeniaPhil

First Post
I am not one of the posters that has taken the position that he cannot appear at the con. My position is that the con organizer needs to be more articulate and concise in his responses condemning harassment, and that he is not doing himself any favors by showing disdain towards those who are complaining.

On the contrary, showing disdain for the disdainful is both necessary and appropriate.

My secondhand understanding is that he has a pattern of drunkenness at conventions, but not a pattern of harassment. The divide seems to be over whether you give harassers a second chance, with reasonable points of disagreement on both sides. Also, if you are the con organizer, is it worth taking a chance on someone?

Correct. The con organizer has absolutely refused to take a chance on those complaining, and is being richly rewarded for it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Dont know the conversation so cannot comment there, I have seen tone deaf and similar comments made whenever someone doesn't instantly support an accuser, I have also seen plenty of times when the victim really is blamed (ie well she shouldn't have dressed so slutty looking). So either case is entirely possible.

Only point I will make, he only began harassing her AFTER she told him to stop. If she never told him to get lost or that she was not interested then he might have been a crude pig but he was not harassing her. The instant she said no thanks then yes he was absolutely in the wrong and I have no problem with him being told to get lost by anyone and everyone. I do not know if or when the required "no thanks" happened, so I cannot say if he did anything wrong.

Except that's not actually true, and not even from a legal standard. It's harassment if it was unwanted and unsolicited, regardless of whether she directly told him to stop or not. Oftentimes the nature of harassment makes the target of it feel unsafe to even request for it stop. Catcalling is a pretty regular sign of this in terms of physical safety, but unsolicited sexual harassment from people who occupy a position of power over them, whether they are directly your employer or a just a legend in your field, can make telling someone to stop a risky proposition (when she called him out on something else and finally blocked him, he threatened that he'd make sure she never worked in the industry again, as an example of how that actually plays out).
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
I'm luckily not subject to US law, and I can say with confidence that a lawsuit as you described would be very shortlived in most European countries. But anyway, I'm derailing the thread, so no more on this.

You may be confident, but I'm American and my sense of confidence is what is important here. And I'm confident you are wrong.

Given that there is no way to know for sure who is actually correct, my overwhelming sense of confidence will carry the day.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I actually read it differently. It seemed to me Myrdin was saying the judgment was valid, but they take counter-productive approaches. I could be wrong, but I think that just means that if someone is emotional, they don't always take the most effective approach to creating change. Sometimes the way someone feels can make them do things in a non-optimal way. That doesn't mean the person shouldn't feel that way, and it doesn't mean that things don't need to change. They do.

I do that myself when I'm emotional. I can say things I regret and make a bad situation worse. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong or my feelings are invalid, it just means I used the wrong approach to make it better. When I calm down and think about it, I'm usually more successful. That doesn't seem like coded sexist ***** to me.

If that's the case then I'll admit that I'm totally wrong, and might even be my own example. This is a pretty charged conversation, and it's entirely possible that I'm jumping at ghosts.
 

neobolts

Explorer
He didn't say that though. Unless he's rephrased it since the distinctly non-specific "What do you think I'll do if I observed any sexual harassment?" comment.

He did releaset a follow up statement on RPGnet and a third statement on his own site. He was very defensive and confrontational on RPGnet, but did say "I will not tolerate sexual harassment, nor will I tolerate any other type of infringement of someone's personal space, rights, freedoms or otherwise."

Everything else he said in the second post is a train wreck, however.

Second statement (reposted from RPGnet): http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ent-Concerns&p=7269733&viewfull=1#post7269733

Third statement (reposted from NTPRGCon):
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ncerns/page4&p=7270254&viewfull=1#post7270254
 

Except that's not actually true, and not even from a legal standard. It's harassment if it was unwanted and unsolicited, regardless of whether she directly told him to stop or not. Oftentimes the nature of harassment makes the target of it feel unsafe to even request for it stop. Catcalling is a pretty regular sign of this in terms of physical safety, but unsolicited sexual harassment from people who occupy a position of power over them, whether they are directly your employer or a just a legend in your field, can make telling someone to stop a risky proposition (when she called him out on something else and finally blocked him, he threatened that he'd make sure she never worked in the industry again, as an example of how that actually plays out).

If a person cannot make a verbal sexual advance without prior approval then who can? You TELLING me that an advance meets with your approval is in and of itself a unsolicited sexual advance.

I cannot say I want to have XXX with you, that is an unsolicited advance.

You cannot tell me you want me to say I want to have XXX with you because you are at that exact moment make an unsolicited advance.

It is not the best source in the world but it is not the worst either. Take a moment and read.

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

Please note that the first thing it says is that sexual harassment is UNWELCOME. One does not know anything of any sort is unwelcome until a negative response is received.

Again, just to be clear, none of this precludes someone from being labeled a boor or a pig for making comments that anyone with any sense of society knows will be received negatively, but you do not do anything criminal until you are told no and continue the same action.

All this being said I have no problem with a Convention or a gaming store, or a group of players, or anyone deciding Erv the Perv is not welcome in their company because he makes crude dick jokes every time he sees a woman even if he stops the instant someone tells him to stop.

If the two people here being talked about have reputations and a history of said actions then ban them. If it was a one off or a misconstrued event or tone deaf moment then move forward and see what happens.
 

neobolts

Explorer
When did we start talking about someone that committed rape?

No one said rape. A convention staffer that intervened during the drunken harassment was allegedly physically assaulted. Understandable how you could have inferred that assault was soft language for rape, but in this case it's referencing simple assault.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

No one said rape. A convention staffer that intervened during the drunken harassment was allegedly physically assaulted. Understandable how you could have inferred that assault was soft language for rape, but in this case it's referencing simple assault.

So you are talking simple assault and battery type assault. Thank you for clarifying. It makes a lot of sense in context here.

My personal opinion is said person should not be banned from Conventions but should be banned from consuming alcohol at them. If said person cannot attend without drinking then they are the ones choosing to not attend.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
If a person cannot make a verbal sexual advance without prior approval then who can? You TELLING me that an advance meets with your approval is in and of itself a unsolicited sexual advance.

I cannot say I want to have XXX with you, that is an unsolicited advance.

You cannot tell me you want me to say I want to have XXX with you because you are at that exact moment make an unsolicited advance.

It is not the best source in the world but it is not the worst either. Take a moment and read.

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

Please note that the first thing it says is that sexual harassment is UNWELCOME. One does not know anything of any sort is unwelcome until a negative response is received.

Again, just to be clear, none of this precludes someone from being labeled a boor or a pig for making comments that anyone with any sense of society knows will be received negatively, but you do not do anything criminal until you are told no and continue the same action.

All this being said I have no problem with a Convention or a gaming store, or a group of players, or anyone deciding Erv the Perv is not welcome in their company because he makes crude dick jokes every time he sees a woman even if he stops the instant someone tells him to stop.

If the two people here being talked about have reputations and a history of said actions then ban them. If it was a one off or a misconstrued event or tone deaf moment then move forward and see what happens.

Yeah, I've gone through Sexual Harassment training once a year, every year, for at least a decade. For behavior to cross the line to harassment it does have to be unwelcome but the target is under no obligation to verbally confirm the unwelcome-ness.

What's missing in this conversation is context. There are contexts in which flirting or unsolicited sexual advances are the expected norm. A bar, for instance. In this context, yeah, a person would have to clarify that such advances are unwelcome before they crossed any line.

In many other instances unsolicited advances would not the expected norm, like, say, over a Facebook message to a person half your age, and also you're married? The context here paints a different story about whether the advances were welcome or otherwise.

Remember that in cases of harassment, the actual intention of the harasser is, in all cases (including legally) totally irrelevant.
 

Yeah, I've gone through Sexual Harassment training once a year, every year, for at least a decade. For behavior to cross the line to harassment it does have to be unwelcome but the target is under no obligation to verbally confirm the unwelcome-ness.

What's missing in this conversation is context. There are contexts in which flirting or unsolicited sexual advances are the expected norm. A bar, for instance. In this context, yeah, a person would have to clarify that such advances are unwelcome before they crossed any line.

In many other instances unsolicited advances would not the expected norm, like, say, over a Facebook message to a person half your age, and also you're married? The context here paints a different story about whether the advances were welcome or otherwise.

Remember that in cases of harassment, the actual intention of the harasser is, in all cases (including legally) totally irrelevant.

Not sure that is entirely accurate. It sounds like the stance a company would take to guarantee it does not become mired in a legal dispute over harassment, but a company is entirely allowed to set policies that are above and beyond what can actually be proven in a court of law.

None of this absolves the person of being a pig, but it does not make them a criminal. So maybe in the end we are talking more about who we would or would not want to associate with more than we are talking about who broke a law.

The creator of this thread obviously does not want people going to this Con because the Con will have people there the poster does not like because of actions they committed and in fact wants to run them out of the industry. That goes beyond mere dislike and moves into the realm of destroying ones livelihood. That certainly puts the guys hosting the Con in a very uncomfortable position.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top