Harassment in gaming

[random.brown]

I am offended is all it should take.

Let's ask the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA fraternity if unsubstantiated claims should just be acted upon without evidence.

 

[Taneras]

There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken... I am offended is all it should take.

You're free to expect action to be taken, whether or not it will be taken will be dependent upon exactly what sort of behavior you're pointing out as offensive. I know you don't think there should be a threshold, but if you go to a convention staff member or a store owner/worker and report someone for making a comment about how "crazy/insane/nuts" that boss fight was you're going to struggle to find people who will sympathize with you. Most people will have some sort of threshold needed for a "he offended me" claim to be seen as reasonable enough to take action.

For instance, if I reported your comment to a moderator here as being "offensive" I don't think they'd just take me at my word. It will take more than "I'm offended", and rightfully so. Being able to deal with these super small things you don't like is part of being an adult. And I think a large part of why we're seeing this be a large issue all of a sudden is a generation raised by helicopter parents who never let their kids solve social conflicts on their own as they were always right there to step in. Only now, the parents aren't around so different figures of authority are being sought out to solve the social conflicts that they've never had to solve themselves.

 

[sunshadow21]

Why in the hell not? Remember, we're discussing harassment in gaming. Let's keep this on topic. If you complain to the management (whether at a con or at an FLGS) that someone is offending you, shouldn't you expect them to do something? Isn't that a basic expectation? Even if it's just pulling the other person aside and having a quiet word. So long as the offensive behaviour stops, that's the entire point. I should never have to "prove" that I was offended by something. That's not for you to judge. There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken.

I am offended is all it should take. Why or how much is NEVER a question that needs to be asked. You should never, ever have to justify why you are offended.

I cannot possibly disagree with this more than I do and I will almost certainly get skewered for saying this, but this is absolutely the thing I despise most about people who are pushing for doing more about harassment. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I cannot tell you it's wrong, but the second you accuse someone else, it's no longer just your opinion. Other people are involved and those other people absolutely have a right to question why you are making the claims you are making. They have a responsiblity to do it in a manner that is respectful both to you as a person and the severity of the claim, but no one has the right to simply claim being offended with no expectation of having to explain themselves at some point to those who ultimately have to make the determination of if the claim is valid or not and what to do about it. If I am the manager of the store, and you come up to me and make a complaint, I will most definitely require some kind of reason or proof before I take any action against who ever you claimed offended you; that may come from you or that may require me to investigate further myself, but simply saying "I'm offended" is not nearly enough for the kind of responses that some people in this thread seem to advocate to counter harassment. The sense of entitlement of some people wanting to end harassment pisses me off; they think that because they are offended, the world must immediately bow to their wishes and do whatever they personally think is necessary to make it end, and that's not how the world works. The world can do a whole lot better in a lot of areas to be certain, but expecting to get exactly what you want when you want it while providing absolutely no reason beyond "it offended me" is pure and utter bs that does nothing to actually solve the problem or promote a genuinely useful conversation. That being said, not everyone has the same right to an explanation; the accused and the person deciding the validity of the claim absolutely deserve at least some kind of explanation, but simple bystanders who try to get involved do not, and those that do get the explanation do have the responsibility of respecting both the accuser and the explanation for the accusation. Even if the accusation proves to be false, they still need to respect the accuser and avoid shaming the accuser if at all possible.

The key throughout the entire thing for everyone, from accuser to judge to accused, is respect. The accuser has no more right to disrespect the accused than vice versa, and both have a responsibilty to themselves, the person in charge, and everyone else around to genuinely listen to the other side and adjust behavior and/or expectations according to how the circumstances play out. Sometimes, that means that the accuser will have to change or leave, sometimes that means that the accused will have to change or leave; most of the time it means that both parties will have to make adjustments. Both parties in those types of situations can usually benefit from a healthy dose of walking in the other's shoes at least briefly.

 

[Springheel]

If you complain to the management (whether at a con or at an FLGS) that someone is offending you, shouldn't you expect them to do something? Isn't that a basic expectation? Even if it's just pulling the other person aside and having a quiet word. So long as the offensive behaviour stops, that's the entire point. I should never have to "prove" that I was offended by something. That's not for you to judge. There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken.

I am offended is all it should take. Why or how much is NEVER a question that needs to be asked. You should never, ever have to justify why you are offended.

There is a big, BIG difference between offense and harrasment, which I'm not sure you're making allowance for.

Offense is inherently subjective. I've already given the example, repeatedly, of people who are "offended" by the things they consider occult in gaming. Suppose one of them were to complain about D&D mentioning demons and magic. They want the game banned from the convention, or from their child's school, or the local game store. This isn't even hypothetical--such people exist and regularly make such complaints. Should they expect action to be taken?

 

[Jabborwacky]

I cannot possibly disagree with this more than I do and I will almost certainly get skewered for saying this, but this is absolutely the thing I despise most about people who are pushing for doing more about harassment. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I cannot tell you it's wrong, but the second you accuse someone else, it's no longer just your opinion. Other people are involved and those other people absolutely have a right to question why you are making the claims you are making. They have a responsiblity to do it in a manner that is respectful both to you as a person and the severity of the claim, but no one has the right to simply claim being offended with no expectation of having to explain themselves at some point to those who ultimately have to make the determination of if the claim is valid or not and what to do about it. If I am the manager of the store, and you come up to me and make a complaint, I will most definitely require some kind of reason or proof before I take any action against who ever you claimed offended you; that may come from you or that may require me to investigate further myself, but simply saying "I'm offended" is not nearly enough for the kind of responses that some people in this thread seem to advocate to counter harassment. The sense of entitlement of some people wanting to end harassment pisses me off; they think that because they are offended, the world must immediately bow to their wishes and do whatever they personally think is necessary to make it end, and that's not how the world works. The world can do a whole lot better in a lot of areas to be certain, but expecting to get exactly what you want when you want it while providing absolutely no reason beyond "it offended me" is pure and utter bs that does nothing to actually solve the problem or promote a genuinely useful conversation. That being said, not everyone has the same right to an explanation; the accused and the person deciding the validity of the claim absolutely deserve at least some kind of explanation, but simple bystanders who try to get involved do not, and those that do get the explanation do have the responsibility of respecting both the accuser and the explanation for the accusation. Even if the accusation proves to be false, they still need to respect the accuser and avoid shaming the accuser if at all possible.

The key throughout the entire thing for everyone, from accuser to judge to accused, is respect. The accuser has no more right to disrespect the accused than vice versa, and both have a responsibilty to themselves, the person in charge, and everyone else around to genuinely listen to the other side and adjust behavior and/or expectations according to how the circumstances play out. Sometimes, that means that the accuser will have to change or leave, sometimes that means that the accused will have to change or leave; most of the time it means that both parties will have to make adjustments. Both parties in those types of situations can usually benefit from a healthy dose of walking in the other's shoes at least briefly.

Harassment issues get complicated by the importance of understanding the background of those involved, whether the messages are from a person or an automated source, the factors leading up to the supposed harassment, etc. Your doubt isn't unhealthy, but victims of harassment usually don't become apparent until they've already experienced significant emotional trauma. There is a big difference between mere offensiveness and the pathological practices of a harasser heaped upon a victim. The fact remains that questioning an honest victim of harassment in that state is taking the risk of worsening the harassment victim's condition. Depending on the severity of the harassment, it could be days or weeks before they are in any mental state to answer questions about the incident. The risk of accidentally worsening the condition of a victim far outweighs any consideration of whether they are lying or not at the time.

To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. A group of people crowding into question the victim is precisely what the attacker wants, because the victim is usually in a mental state incapable of understanding the difference between inquiry and criticism. Thus, your questions begin a cycle of self destruction, as the victim retaliates, bystanders, not fully understanding the gravity of the situation, retaliate back. You become the attacker's newest weapon.

 

[Hussar]

Note, I am specifically speaking to harassment. Simply being offended is not harassment although it could lead to such.

And note, there should be policies in place. The offended person goes to management and makes a complaint. Management then talks to the other person and that's largely as far as it needs to go. If there are further complaints then more action is taken.

At no point can someone who doesn't like the occult trying to get DND removed from a school come even close to claiming harassment. There simply is no grounds for that claim.

Again we see people trying to connect unrelated issues.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. (snip) You become the attacker's newest weapon.

Indeed.

In that regard, Ken Burnside's post to Medium, "For Good Men To See Nothing" is worth the read for anyone who feels differently, or is convinced these things don't actually happen.

As well for anyone who takes the issue of harassment in gaming seriously.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let's ask the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA fraternity if unsubstantiated claims should just be acted upon without evidence.

There was evidence. Falsified, yes, but evidence nonetheless.

Tossing aside the Duke case, which progressed much further than it should have because of prosecutorial malfeasance (that ultimately got him disbarred), the UVA case was initiated because of serious allegations.

Now, if you look around, standard operating procedure in many such type cases* is to suspend activities in which further violations could be committed while an investigation takes place. This is responsible, pragmatic procedure.

Imagine, if you will, if such restrictions were not implemented: if the guys at UVA been actually guilty, but free to continue their partying ways unless and until they were actually proven guilty, they'd have had time to add a bunch more victims to their tally. Furthermore, the university would likely be open to civil liability for allowing that environment to exist while the investigation was ongoing.

Were the men of UVA unjustly harmed? Yes. But compared to the harm averted had they been guilty of the offenses alleged, the hit to their reputation was minor. Society erred on the side of caution, but got it wrong in their case.

Let us also not forget that the Greek Culture is fighting it's own issues of past and present harassment of women and minorities and other criminal activity, just like Geek Culture is, and that added credence to the believability of the initial falsehoods. For every two giant strides forward they take as a whole, they keep taking ugly, highly public steps backwards. Some haven't figured out yet you don't haze people- especially to death- get seen doing racist/bigoted chants, or cover up for brothers caught stealing & engaging in animal cruelty.






* The police do likewise when there is an officer involved shooting, for instance. Hospitals restrict patient access for doctors under investigation of serious crimes. Etc.

 

[sunshadow21]

Harassment issues get complicated by the importance of understanding the background of those involved, whether the messages are from a person or an automated source, the factors leading up to the supposed harassment, etc. Your doubt isn't unhealthy, but victims of harassment usually don't become apparent until they've already experienced significant emotional trauma. There is a big difference between mere offensiveness and the pathological practices of a harasser heaped upon a victim. The fact remains that questioning an honest victim of harassment in that state is taking the risk of worsening the harassment victim's condition. Depending on the severity of the harassment, it could be days or weeks before they are in any mental state to answer questions about the incident. The risk of accidentally worsening the condition of a victim far outweighs any consideration of whether they are lying or not at the time.

To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. A group of people crowding into question the victim is precisely what the attacker wants, because the victim is usually in a mental state incapable of understanding the difference between inquiry and criticism. Thus, your questions begin a cycle of self destruction, as the victim retaliates, bystanders, not fully understanding the gravity of the situation, retaliate back. You become the attacker's newest weapon.

And that is precisely why I despise the idea that people don't have to explain themselves. You are basically asking a complete stranger to insert themselves with no details into a situation that is at best unfriendly and at worst hostile and potentially dangerous, but if they react like any normal human being does and hesitate and ask questions, they are being insensitive to the needs of the person being harassed. It's a lose/lose situation for the person being expected to resolve the problem. I fail to see how that accomplishes anything. At the very least, the person making the complaint needs to be able to describe enough of the triggering event for the person in charge to start an investigation. If the person is incapable of distinguishing between criticism and inquiry, they need to find someone they trust to be able to answer at least the basic questions; if they are incapable of doing even that, there is nothing I can do to help unless I was standing right there and saw enough of the key events to move ahead to the later stages of the investigation.

As for the vicious cycle, I already covered that. There needs to be respect on both sides. The person making the accusation needs to be respectful enough of the person they are trying to get help from to give them room to ask questions without having to deal with a lot of bystanders standing around, and the person hearing the complaint needs to do everything they can to keep bystanders away and give the accuser the room and time they need to be able to properly articulate the full problem. An accuser that tries to make the accusastion in the middle of the crowd in which the incident happened is setting themselves up for disappointment because the person in charge is basically forced into a lose/lose situation regardless of the decision they make. Giving the person in charge enough wiggle room and information to do what needs to be done is absolutely crucial, and if the person making the accusation fails to do that, they have to be prepared to accept that the resolution is going to be less than ideal for everybody involved. It's certainly easier to find the space to get things to work if there is some kind of functional policy in place, but it still takes a certain amount of time and adequate information for those polices to work properly, and making the statement of being harassed/offended and expecting an immediate response without giving any more information whatsoever is going to fail.

This is where the responsibility of the bystanders comes in and where most of the changes truly need to occur; they can either make the situation easier or harder depending on how they choose to react, and the person in charge rarely has enough control over that be fairly called the attacker's newest weapon. If the bystanders are respectful and back up and let the person in charge deal with it, resolution will probably in most cases be quick and relatively painless. If they decide that they need to butt in to business they no nothing about and no authority to deal with, even if the intervention is well intended, that's when the vicious cycle described above usually starts. It doesn't start with the person in charge asking the questions; it starts when too many busybodys deciding they deserve to be more involved than they really need to be. Contrary to what many seem to believe, staying the frick out of the way is often far more helpful than trying to intervene; at least the person in charge has the pull of authority to fall back on if the situation turns out to be very different than what was expected. Random bystanders are more often than not going to be a nuisance to both the accuser and the person in charge, and should probably consider stepping back until their presence is requested or truly required. This does not mean ignore the situation or simply walk away; it means stepping back far enough to give those who have good reason to be involved room to function.

 

[Hussar]

How's this for a hypothetical [MENTION=6667193]sunshadow21[/MENTION]?

You're part of the management of a gaming convention. A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her and she is very offended. She wants you to do something.

"What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.

The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it. You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you. This is a formal warning. If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."

And THAT'S how you handle that.

What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit. You should ALWAYS err on the side of caution. If John Doe hadn't actually said anything or it was just a misunderstanding, then there will not be any more complaints about John Doe for the convention and no harm, no foul. End of problem. OTOH, if there are more complaints about John Doe, then you simply eject John Doe and again, this is the right answer.

"Is your harassment complaint legitimate enough to me that I should get up and do something about it" is 100% completely the wrong answer.