Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 11, 2019

So, yeah, mob mentality has been a problem, is a problem, and will be a problem and it shouldn't be brushed off as necessarily harmless to innocent people just because it sometimes takes down people who deserve it.

While simultaneously, a tool that has proven efficacious should not be summarily dismissed because some innocent people get damaged by it on occasion. As with many things in life, nothing is perfect- it’s a balancing act.

And like many balancing acts, we have tools to fend off, mitigate, and somewhat rectify the situation when things go wrong...if people choose to abide by them. There are statistical analyses that tell us the approximate rates of false accusations across a broad assortment of offenses, which should guide our responses to reports of wrongdoing. There are civil and criminal laws punishing those who deliberately or recklessly make false accusations, meaning they could not only do time, they could face stiff financial penalties as well.

To use one offered example, the Central Park 5 were eventually exonerated and awarded a multimillion dollar settlement. And, as I recall, a second one as well as more facts came forward. (OTOH, the person who took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for their execution has never apologized.)

Were they made whole? Could they return to their previous normal lives? Of course not. The bell, rung, cannot be unrung. But they were given the apology (most) of society could give them. They are free to find their new normal, if they can.

Riley37 · Jun 11, 2019

billd91 said:
But it also derailed a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel for a while by convincing Disney to fire James Gunn (at least for a while). Meanwhile, people like Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day get doxxed.

Whether it's more important to hold James Gunn accountable for his actions, or whether it's more important that GoG 3 get produced ASAP, is a matter of opinion. Gunn took the opportunity to step up, admit that he'd acted (in his past) without proper regard for consequences to others, and establish that he was not *continuing* to act that way. Is that moral example, to the SFF community and to humanity at large, worth a delay of a year or two, on the third movie in a series? I say, yes it is. The delay is unfortunate for those who die during the interval, and thus will never get to see GoG3... but sometimes the needs of the many override the needs of the few. (The consequence for Gunn, was that he hopped over to Marvel and wrote "Suicide Squad 2". He's also said that the experience was, in the long run, good for him.)

In any case, the accusations against James Gunn are not *false*. We can disagree on the scale of what consequences are proportional to his actions. Either of us can urge Disney, and encourage others to urge Disney, to act according to our preferred scale of consequences. But Gunn himself says that he wrote messages which were "failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative". Unlike Mentzer, Gunn hasn't claimed that his account was hacked.

Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day are also not cases of false accusation. They really did oppose Gamergate. I happen to stand with them, so I see *any* action against them as unjust.. an unjust mob attacked them for *calling out its injustice* ...but there's no question of whether anyone *falsely* claimed that they opposed Gamergate.

So where's the *false accusation* of someone
(a) in gaming:
(b) using a position of status (eg Mentzer's role in the industry, or Rolfe's role as GM and as Room Captain)
(c) in the service of their personal agenda (from Mentzer's desire for Jessica Price, to Rolfe's desire to see shock on his player's faces)
(d) in a way which "punches down".

LordEntrails · Jun 11, 2019

Hussar said:
... That's pretty much the long and the short of the story.

Which, frankly, is as it should be. There's no reason for extended drama or hand wringing or anything like that. We've got the con doing due diligence, we've got at least one player flatly contradicting the GM in question, and we've got the results - the GM is banned from the con and won't be running games some other cons as well.

What more is expected here? Isn't this pretty much textbook for how this should work?

Nothing. And that's how it should be. Unfortunately, this thread is now on page 27. Though I am please to say I have read nothing between paged 3-26 (or so) and don't plan on wasting more time on it. I guess maybe if it makes it another 25 pages I will chime in to repeat my dismay.

Riley37 · Jun 11, 2019

LordEntrails said:
I am please to say I have read nothing between paged 3-26 (or so) and don't plan on wasting more time on it. I guess maybe if it makes it another 25 pages I will chime in to repeat my dismay.

That's a bold, unconventional position. We might even call it... edgy.

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

Hussar said:
Let's be fair here. How much effort are you actually going to expend on a news story where a guy gets booted out of a gaming convention? Sure, they may not have the details exactly right, but, by and large, they've got the gist - guy goes way beyond the pale when running a game, players complain on Twitter, guy gets expelled from Con. That's pretty much the long and the short of the story.

Getting details right is largely what it is about though. I used to get in great trouble if I got lazy and some minor fact was slightly off. I used to be a freelance reporter, and even on a story like that, I was always expected to expend the same amount of effort and due my due diligence contacting sources and verifying. It isn't unique to this story but I am just a bit surprised how often I see news articles rely on things like twitter. And I definitely would have been expected to contact the person at the center of the story. And this was the BBC so I expected more.

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.

Riley37 · Jun 11, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Getting details right is largely what it is about though. I used to get in great trouble if I got lazy and some minor fact was slightly off.

Bedrockgames said:
I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.

Hold yourself to that standard of "details matter"; read exact phrasing, in context; and THEN tell us exactly where you see which gamers defending 'mob mentality', on what basis.

Hussar · Jun 11, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I am very surprised to see gamers defending 'mob mentality'.

No, what you are seeing is folks looking for the "mob mentality" and not seeing any in this case. And other folks defending the GM in question from the hypothetical mob this out to get him.

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

Hussar said:
No, what you are seeing is folks looking for the "mob mentality" and not seeing any in this case. And other folks defending the GM in question from the hypothetical mob this out to get him.

What I see is a lot of people online calling for this person to be banned, and calling for large changes to how the hobby functions, over a single incident. One where the game was marked mature. Like I said, the con can do what it wants. If they feel he crossed a line, then by all means, that is their judgment. But I do think is a mob thing going on here (and many posters are freely talking about the value of public shaming in cases like this). I am not so sure. I do think that this is going to have an impact on the life of the GM in question. It is one thing to say a person crossed the line at a con and should be removed, but should a global ban be in effect? And again, the game was marked mature. That isn't the kind of game I would want to play, and I am a bit unclear if the tone of it was meant to be serious and disturbing, or if it was meant to be more in the style of the hang over movies. But if I signed up for a mature session, in the back of my mind, I would see this kind of adolescent humor/gross-out/edgy stuff might or even objectionable content, might crop up. Most likely I'd just excuse myself from the game. Again, not my cup of tea, but I do think there is a powerful moral consensus against this one individual forming in the game community and I don't know if it is such a good thing that this is happening.

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

Riley37 said:
Hold yourself to that standard of "details matter"; read exact phrasing, in context; and THEN tell us exactly where you see which gamers defending 'mob mentality', on what basis.

Fair enough, I missed the quotations (though in fairness I am not writing a news article

). But, and not picking on Danny here because I find him to be one of the most reasonable posters in these discussions, but here is one example that to me seems to be defending mob mentality (it was in response to a poster arguing that public shaming is a problem):

Dannyalcatraz said:
While simultaneously, a tool that has proven efficacious should not be summarily dismissed because some innocent people get damaged by it on occasion. As with many things in life, nothing is perfect- it’s a balancing act.

There have definitely been defenses of shunning and shaming, and using the power of social media to do so here I think. And I do think it isn't inaccurate to call this reaction an internet mob reaction. It is occurring on threads like this, facebook, all over twitter, on blogs and youtube channels. We have painted a picture of this person based on one session, which could have been anything from a misjudgment on his part, to blatantly offensive GMing, to an over-reaction on the part of the players. I honestly have a very hard time assessing it not having been there myself, because this is a case where how it was delivered and the tone would have mattered a great deal. Also the vibe of the tables would have mattered too.