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

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Denying that you are vetting the attendees of a public event, could be a way of avoiding legal responsibility.

That rarely works. Especially when you have foreknowledge that there could be an issue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Guang

Explorer
I think we're at +10 calling the OP out for clickbait.

His comments sound a lot like stereotypical Texan bravado.
If the con organizer wants a small con run for a bunch of good-ol'-boy old-school RPG gamers
I find this offensive. It is a personal, demonizing attack.

Pooping out this sort of hyperbole.....
If this is your idea of rhetoric, my kid has some fart jokes for you.
 

Koren n'Rhys

Explorer
Hiya!

No problem from me...just as long as there is at least a decent list of examples that would constitute "harassment". It's when some mouthpiece says "We will not tolerate harassment of any kind at the Con", and that's it....that I have a problem with. It's like visiting a foreign city and the welcome person says "Welcome! Enjoy your stay, but don't do anything bad or we'll kick you out"...and they don't tell you what "bad" is. Is swearing bad? Is wearing just a bikini top and shorts in public bad? Is drinking in public bad? Is running with scissors bad?

Same thing with a blanket "harassment" (or even "sexual harassment, hate speech, racism" and the like). Is saying "Wow! You're looking sexy as hell in that Witcher costume!" considered sexual harassment? Or would someone have to say that, then follow it up with a crotch grab or a slap on the behind? Or something in between? Would a guy who's gaze lingers a little bit too much at the buxom cosplayer be guilty of sexual harassment, or not? And then we get into the non-existent "hate speech" (no, I don't believe there is such a thing...at least nothing that should be illegal, imho). Is someone saying "Ugh...I got stuck in a group of 6 players...ALL were unwashed white dudes!"...is that 'hate speech'? Some would actually argue that yes, it is...and some would say no, it isn't.

...and that's why I have no problem with any Con/Organization laying down the standard "we don't put up with harassment, yadda yadda yadda" that everyone and their dog has to say now, else they be accused of being nazi's or whatever. But what I do have a problem with is Cons/Organizers refusing to give any examples of what they actually consider 'bad' for these things.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
I think the fairly obvious problem with this approach is that once you begin to detail exactly what is or is not acceptable, you are bound to that list. By publishing that as a social contract, you become legally bound by it. If a con produces this list of unacceptable behaviors, and some one is banned for something NOT on that list (no matter how deserved that may have been) they can come back and sue the con on the grounds that what they did wasn't on the banned behaviors list. IMO, a con is much better served by a general statement of non-tolerance, with each incident being ruled upon a the time.
 

mythago

Hero
This beggars the question of when, and by whose order, do these men get to attend conventions or tabletop business?

"Get to"? There's an inalienable right to attend conventions or participate in particular gaming communities? Sounds more like Geek Social Fallacies than begging a question.

That aside, we already know how to handle other misbehavior that we don't put in scare quotes. If Bob shamelessly cheats on his die rolls during big fights, do you invite him back, even if other people would rather not play with him? If you find out Jane stole stuff from dealer tables at a con, when does she "get to" start coming back to your convention again? What if Pat turns up at every LARP drunk and clowns around acting disruptive - how many times are you going to accept him saying it won't happen again? And do you make those decisions purely on the basis of whether you caught them in the act or whether the people they directly harmed ask you to kick them out?
 

fjw70

Adventurer
My issue with the con organizer is that he that he has been made aware of potential harassers invited to his convention and he has decided to take the position that he doesn't know what they have done and don't really care. A response more along the line of "I have looked into the actions of these two and while the allegations concern me I have decided to not rescind their invitation. I have talked to both of them and warned them to behave themselves." While this gets to the same end result, it atleast shows he is taking the concerns seriously.

And don't give me the he is a bad communicator line. Their is a difference between someone who is bad at communicating and someone that just doesn't give a crap. He seems more like the latter.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
-1 on the misleading headline hysteria. It remains an eminently accurate headline; if not value-neutral, which if we're all being honest is the real issue of concern here.

There's this belief that in order for a work of journalism to have integrity or even just be considered "good" it must remain as impartial as possible, even in situations where one (or both) sides are objectively wrong. Taken to extremes you wind up with weasily non-journalism that provides no information or context outside of carefully crafted quotes on all sides. You wind up with what are essentially non-headlines like "[Neo-nazi Speaker] makes remarks some critics find racist" which is completely asinine.

Sometimes journalistic integrity requires more than just regurgitating what people on both sides are saying; it requires cutting through the nonsense and reporting the actual truth. And the truth is exactly what the headline says. There seems to be some quibbling over the definition of the term "listening" but [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head in terms of what should be commonly understood by the use of the phrase in this context:

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Maybe "Fails" would be a more accurate term to use in this case than "Refuses" in this instance. Or maybe "...Fails to Adequately Address Concerns..." would be just as accurate (as well as still non-value-neutral) and less liable to hand-wringing over semantics. But believing the con owner's statements on the matter to be adequate in any sense of that word betrays a similar ignorance as to the seriousness, ubiquity and harmful consequences of harassment, both in general and within our hobby. Considering that 2017 is quickly shaping up to be the Year We Finally Start Taking This :):):):) Seriously, As A Society, it would be a prudent move to get educated, and with haste.
 

Derren

Hero
My issue with the con organizer is that he that he has been made aware of potential harassers invited to his convention and he has decided to take the position that he doesn't know what they have done and don't really care. A response more along the line of "I have looked into the actions of these two and while the allegations concern me I have decided to not rescind their invitation. I have talked to both of them and warned them to behave themselves." While this gets to the same end result, it atleast shows he is taking the concerns seriously.

And don't give me the he is a bad communicator line. Their is a difference between someone who is bad at communicating and someone that just doesn't give a crap. He seems more like the latter.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Caliban

Rules Monkey
WTF, I agree with everyone here that the title is clickbait BS.

Yeah, I agree with this as well.

How does the title "North Texas RPG Convention Refuses To Listen To Harassment Concerns" have any kind of truth to it when the event runner says...

"I have asked the people to leave the con when I've observed them debating politics and/or religion at the gaming table. (So what do you think I'd do when I observe any sexual harassment") .

Its pretty damn clear that he's saying if there's sexual harassment he's going to make them leave the con.

Eh, not so much. He may just join in for a laugh, until he realizes the target is seriously upset. Then he may shoot someone. :p

I was born and raised in Texas. Unfortunately, a certain amount of harassment (sexual, racial, homophobic, or otherwise) is considered normal for a lot of people there - both men and women. Insults and verbal jibes are a form of humor and having a thick hide and giving as good as you get is how you are supposed to react. Getting upset and complaining is a sign of weakness. This leads to a lot of otherwise unacceptable behavior being swept under the rug.

The question is when that "certain amount" crosses the line into "this isn't funny anymore, stop it before you get shot" territory. (Hyperbole and exaggeration is also a long standing Texan tradition.) And this guy has decided he's the sole arbiter of where that line is at his con.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
Agreed. This is worse than shoddy reporting; it's actively misleading.

It's click-bait of the worst kind. Not only is it actively misleading, it seems to promote a hostile mis-characterization of someone. I really hope ENWorld will correct this.
 

Zarithar

Adventurer
There are a lot of posts here which call out the "clickbait" nature of the title, and I have to agree. Had it been just one or two folks that brought this up, it could easily be dismissed... but when every other post calls this out I think it's time for ENWorld to maybe take a second look at the title of the post. As for the story itself... I wish I had that 5-10 minutes of my life back.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top