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

Bagpuss said:

The climate where everything is dealt with under a public microscope rather than, just between the people involved (I include UKGE as part of the people involved, just for clarity). Where the press are apt to creating sensational stories out of hearsay and rumour rather than actually talking to the people involved. Where people call for someone to end up on the sex offenders register for what was at something happening in a fictional space (admittedly clearly fringe elements of the community).

Click to expand...

Umm, what?

1. Sex offenders register (which I have no idea if it exists in England) would only be for those convicted of a crime. So, nope.

2. Keeping this "quiet" simply allows these people to keep doing whatever it was they were doing.

3. What evidence do you have that no one from the media talked to the people involved?

Here's a thought. If you are going to run a game in a public space, maybe, just maybe, don't include rape scenes in it. I dunno. I would have thought that that would have been pretty self-explanatory, but, apparently, some folks need to have stuff like that spelled out. And, by making it public, instead of hiding it, other folks maybe can learn that no, you don't get to do whatever the hell you want to do in public spaces.

Not having a lot of sympathy here.

Bagpuss said:

The climate where everything is dealt with under a public microscope rather than, just between the people involved (I include UKGE as part of the people involved, just for clarity).

Click to expand...

Ah yes, you mean the climate where we talk openly about bad behavior and bad actors, both to discourage future bad behavior but also to make it more difficult for bad actors to continue operating in the shadows by relying on our tendency to sweep things under the carpet and turn a blind eye to behavior that doesn't directly involve us. The climate we've made safer for damn near everybody by making it significantly less safe for perpetrators and predators.

You know, as opposed to the climate we used to have, where we all put on blinders so any accusations seemed wildly out of character and could be easily dismissed, allowing predators to thrive for years/decades before facing so much as social consequences, let alone anything more severe.

It's a much better climate, really.

Gradine said:

Ah yes, you mean the climate where we talk openly about bad behavior and bad actors, both to discourage future bad behavior but also to make it more difficult for bad actors to continue operating in the shadows by relying on our tendency to sweep things under the carpet and turn a blind eye to behavior that doesn't directly involve us. The climate we've made safer for damn near everybody by making it significantly less safe for perpetrators and predators.

You know, as opposed to the climate we used to have, where we all put on blinders so any accusations seemed wildly out of character and could be easily dismissed, allowing predators to thrive for years/decades before facing so much as social consequences, let alone anything more severe.

It's a much better climate, really.

Click to expand...

As the many priests and nuns of my acquaintance might say, “Evil loves to hide.”

They might even quote John 3:20:

For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

Click to expand...

Dannyalcatraz said:

As the many priests and nuns of my acquaintance might say, “Evil loves to hide.”

They might even quote John 3:20:

Click to expand...

I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved.

Again, nothing against the faith or the church writ large, but it does provide us with a tragic example of pervasive and lasting harm caused by the type of myopic and cloistered “climate” some here appear to long for us to return to.

Riley37 said:

In the absence of advice, off the cuff, I'd propose this response: a communication along the lines of "We have received and processed your registration. We are aware of your history. We advise you to closely read our Community Standards of Behavior (link goes here). Your welcome at GameCon IX is conditional: you may not run any games at our event, not even in the Open Gaming Room. What you do in your hotel room is beyond our authority, but even so, we encourage you to err on the side of caution and good taste."

Click to expand...

This causes a lot of problems for the con and I don't think it's worth their effort. They'll have to make sure convention personnel are aware of who this person is, what he looks like, and keep an eye on him at all times to make sure he isn't violating the conditions of his attendance. Most con personnel (and GMs who aren't even con personnel) are volunteers and they shouldn't be burdened with this sort of task. And then there's the liability issue the convention may have to deal with. If there were an incident and the convention was sued they might be asked by a solicitor why they allowed someone they believed to be dangerous to attend. And of course they'd also take a publicity hit if they allowed this individual to attend and he repeated his bad behavior.

I'm not keen on destroying this guys life either. But if I were running a convention I just wouldn't be willing to jump through hoops to ensure this guy could participate.

MGibster said:

This causes a lot of problems for the con and I don't think it's worth their effort. They'll have to make sure convention personnel are aware of who this person is, what he looks like, and keep an eye on him at all times to make sure he isn't violating the conditions of his attendance. Most con personnel (and GMs who aren't even con personnel) are volunteers and they shouldn't be burdened with this sort of task. And then there's the liability issue the convention may have to deal with. If there were an incident and the convention was sued they might be asked by a solicitor why they allowed someone they believed to be dangerous to attend. And of course they'd also take a publicity hit if they allowed this individual to attend and he repeated his bad behavior.

I'm not keen on destroying this guys life either. But if I were running a convention I just wouldn't be willing to jump through hoops to ensure this guy could participate.

Click to expand...

And, really, that's what this comes down to. Every time these sorts of things come up, everyone jumps up and down talking about "investigating claims" and various other things that "should be done". It's just not feasible. It's no different than a bar or any other social gathering area. When a complaint comes in, you deal with it and move on. As a con runner, you don't have the right to "question witnesses" in any sort of legal sense, nor is it your responsibility to do so. I don't want some con planner sitting in judgement over "well, I guess that complaint is good enough, but, that other one isn't." No, it's not how this works.

A complaint is made, and it gets dealt with. Even if we want to take the GM at his word and it's "only" kidnapping children and covering them with feces, well, as a con rep, do you really want that representing what you think should be played at your con? If you do, then fair enough, be up front with con goers - tell them that you are not policing GM's and GM's are free to present whatever game they want, and caveat emptor.

OTOH, if you are billing yourself as an all ages convention where you KNOW that there will be minors present, then it's your responsibility to ensure that games fit within those parameters and if a game or GM doesn't, they get the boot. All the crap about "due dilligence" and "investigate" and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply. Con runners have neither the time, nor the inclination to "investigate". You treat a claim as valid and deal with it.

It utterly baffles me how much slack people are willing to cut folks. I mean, there's nothing in Things from the Flood or Tales from the Loop that would even hint that this would be an expected scenario. A thinly veiled reference to a gang rape scenario isn't what folks signed up for, I'm thinking, nor is it even remotely acceptable at (From the front page of the UKGE):

Now in its 13th Year, UK Games Expo (UKGE) is the largest Hobby Games Convention in the UK. A fun event appealing to families and the general public as well as the enthusiast.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're catching DannyA's drift and enjoyment of the irony.

Hussar said:

No, it's not how this works.

Click to expand...

Some of what you say does not match my experiences, both interacting with and working on convention security teams.

All the crap about "due dilligence" and "investigate" and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply. Con runners have neither the time, nor the inclination to "investigate". You treat a claim as valid and deal with it.

Click to expand...

That's not usually how it works. There's a convention security team, and they do *NOT* just boot anyone against whom a claim is made. There is a process (exactly what it is varies from con to con). You are correct that they are not police, but unless someone is caught in flagrante delicto security does do at least some base inquiry with the people involved.

On one point we do agree - They don't need to have criminal justice level burden of proof, because it isn't a criminal case. So the wringing of hands over "innocent until proven guilty" isn't appropriate. The burden of proof is more like, "Does security find this accusation hangs plausibly together after a few questions?" For the level of discipline available at their disposal, that's fairly appropriate.

Gradine said:

I don’t want to kick any hornets nests, and I certainly don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but there’s a certain... I’m trying to choose my words carefully... but there’s a definite irony, intentional or otherwise, in mentioning the Catholic Church in a discussion about the dangers of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug, leaving them out of the public eye only to be handled by those involved.

Again, nothing against the faith or the church writ large, but it does provide us with a tragic example of pervasive and lasting harm caused by the type of myopic and cloistered “climate” some here appear to long for us to return to.

Click to expand...

Certainly! I’d be disingenuous & hypocritical if I failed to admit that. (See also the recently publicized Irish orphanage/forced adoption scandal.)

It’s a great example: evil acts were allowed to remain hidden from the general populace and even the body of the Church. It festered and grew. Only when the scandal broke were more than a few offenders held responsible in any meaningful way, and reforms made (in 2007) that have diminished the number of new cases to a trickle.

I will just point out that the rate of offenses to which you refer is no greater in Catholicism than in any other faith. The reason it seems otherwise is sheer force of numbers: we make up approximately 40% of all Christianity worldwide, so there are more incidents in absolute numbers to report.

Since the scandal first broke decades ago, we’ve been forced by that prominence to re-evaluate how we handle penance, the sanctity of the confessional, and our clergy’s duty to report crimes.

Other religious organizations are only now beginning to emulate (or improve upon) some of the corrective measures we initiated in 2007 in the light of increasing scrutiny of their own bad actors.

Umbran said:

Some of what you say does not match my experiences, both interacting with and working on convention security teams.



That's not usually how it works. There's a convention security team, and they do *NOT* just boot anyone against whom a claim is made. There is a process (exactly what it is varies from con to con). You are correct that they are not police, but unless someone is caught in flagrante delicto security does do at least some base inquiry with the people involved.

On one point we do agree - They don't need to have criminal justice level burden of proof, because it isn't a criminal case. So the wringing of hands over "innocent until proven guilty" isn't appropriate. The burden of proof is more like, "Does security find this accusation hangs plausibly together after a few questions?" For the level of discipline available at their disposal, that's fairly appropriate.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Thank you for saying this better than I did.