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

macd21 · Jun 7, 2019

Bagpuss said:
No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.

No, actually, they don’t. Because if the people actually involved complain, nothing happens. If they complain, they risk harassment themselves. And most of the time they don’t complain, because of the previous two points. A lot of the time they just stop going to cons, and probably stop gaming.That is the ‘climate’ that was replaced by the one we have now. It was a climate that many people found hostile and unwelcoming, because of

like this, and because any time they tried to advocate for change, they’d be harassed out of the community by people defending the

s. And it’s exactly what we would go back to if we listened to you and people like you. You’re so willing to bend over backwards to give

s the benefit of the doubt that they’re never so much as questioned, never mind punished.

Immortal Sun · Jun 7, 2019

Michele said:
Option 2.First thing, many traditions existed since the beginning of social interaction, including slavery.

Sorry, I stopped valuing your input when you compared social shaming to slavery. Thanks for playing though.

Umbran · Jun 7, 2019

Folks, do not get heated. Do not invoke the language filter - that is an indication to the moderators that you are no longer discussing in a calm manner, and will have to be removed from the thread.

Umbran · Jun 7, 2019

Bagpuss said:
No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.

What you fail to see is that, if it isn't made visible, there is no need to answer to anyone, and behavior does not change. This is proven by history. When these things stayed quiet and private, as they did for decades, they were generally ignored, or swept under the rug. Since it was effectively hidden, the conventions were not being held accountable for their choices, so there was no need to hold bad actors accountable, either. We have the problems now because the culture you seem to want failed to correct behavior!

There is no accountability in a culture of silence. Visibility means the public holds the UKGE (and other convention organizations) accountable, so they hold their content providers accountable.

jasper · Jun 7, 2019

Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no. And I forget who propose it but having cons put him on a watch list just because he shows up. That is too far.

Bagpuss · Jun 7, 2019

macd21 - I have a little more faith in a convention to actually respond than you, especially when they have this (see below) in their Keeping you Safe section. I also think you are far more likely to expose yourself to harassment by going public on twitter than keeping it with the convention staff.

More than just words
UK Games Expo believes that keeping us all safe is far more than a matter of having a policy - its about what we do to actively promote this environment.

This begins at the level of how we train our volunteers. All volunteers have to participate in a webinar which emphasizes and clarifies an active approach. This approach means doing something if you see a problem and not just ignoring it. One phrase we use in that training is:

"The behaviour you walk past or ignore is the behaviour you condone"

UK Games Expo was the first convention to oblige all volunteers from its senior staff down to participate in this training so that on the weekend they all know what to do if they encounter behaviour that is inappropriate.

Umbran · Jun 7, 2019

jasper said:
Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no.

Why not?

Really. Why not?

He can still go to the other cons. He can play games. He just can't run them. What is he losing - the chance to run a handful of games a year? Why is that such a big deal? Given that the vast majority of people who go to conventions don't run games anyway, I fail to see how this is so excessive as to merit, "Hell, no."

Jonathan Tweet · Jun 7, 2019

Back in 1988, I wrote an article for Gateways magazine about how you can't treat what happens in the game world as emotionally separate from the impact you're having on the flesh-and-blood players at the table. Thirty years later, here we are. My impression is that this sort of abusive behavior is in decline, but still...

Anyone remember Gateways? https://rpggeek.com/rpgperiodical/2110/gateways

Michele · Jun 7, 2019

If the main point made about social shaming is that it is a long-held tradition of humanity, then comparing it other long-held traditions of humanity is nothing extraordinary.

The point is that being old does not equate with being good.

macd21 · Jun 7, 2019

Bagpuss said:
macd21 - I have a little more faith in a convention to actually respond than you, especially when they have this (see below) in their Keeping you Safe section. I also think you are far more likely to expose yourself to harassment by going public on twitter than keeping it with the convention staff.

Cons have had policies like that for years, most of which were never enforced properly. That such policies have been improved upon and actually implemented properly is down to the climate you’re complaining about. And it’s hardly universal yet - many, if not most, cons today are still pretty shoddy in this regard. Even UKGE, for all that it has that policy, isn’t great - I’ve spoken to some of their volunteers who didn’t get the webinar and weren’t aware of the policy.Again: the reason things are changing for the better is because of the climate you decry. And it’ll improve more if people stop blaming victims for daring to raise their voice.