Harassment in gaming

[Umbran]

Though, I've certainly not allowed people at my table because they weren't good enough roleplayers. Some of them have been women. It wasn't my problems if anyone else didn't want them at their table either. I just wanted to get the best player at my own table since quality of players can make or break a game. And some people just aren't fun to be around. Especially if they are the kind of people that find everything offensive.

"You are personally obnoxious," is not a meritocracy argument. That one I allow for.

"As a roleplayer, you have a different focus from the rest of the group," is also fine. That's a style issue, not a merit issue. So, the "you are only interested in combat, and we are all about social interaction" case is covered here.

"Not a good enough roleplayer," is, to my mind, so vague and ill-defined as to not be useful*, and I will, in fact, look at you funny for it. Here I am, looking at you funny:



*Really, what does that even mean? Do you have a skills test that renders some measure of roleplaying you put people through, or something? How does "I don't like how you do it" become "You are not good at it"? As if *you* know what is good and bad, in terms of personal merit? Really?

 

[sunshadow21]

And most of this, again, is not about "meritocracy". It is about women getting their butts grabbed and looked down on.

And you completely missed the point of the post. There has been very little discussion on the morality of women getting groped because the base definition is pretty clear cut. But when we as a society are to a point that we can't openly discuss something as basic as who best qualifies for a particular job, something even more personal like what constitutes "being put down" is going to near impossible to define sufficiently to allow the accessibility you think everyone already has. If the half dozen people active in this thread n your side can't tell agree on where to put the line aside from all or nothing, how can you expect me to know what is safe to say and what isn't when I'm surrounded by hundreds of strangers? It's an impossible standard for anyone and I see no point in pursuing it to the degree that you think I am obligated to.


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

However, if I'm reading both sides correctly, harassment most certainly did occur at this convention. If it's true that the woman snuck into the convention known for sexual content, was harassed and assaulted by someone from her own group, and later refused to cooperate fully with convention staff . . . doesn't really change the base fact that she was assaulted at this convention. To imply that this woman was somehow at least partially at fault for what happened to her is blaming the victim, which is not cool.

And it's not my intention to blame anyone. I wasn't there (well, I was likely at the convention, since I've gone every year for the last 20, but I wasn't in that room), so I don't know the circumstances of what happened. I don't know her. At least, I don't recognize her picture when someone showed it to me and I was told her name and don't recognize that either. I'm just relating what I've heard from some of the people involved. When I asked someone who is more involved in the planning of the convention, that's pretty much the answer they gave me. I figured since it was being discussed, I'd pass it along.

Last point, whoah! You describe a convention I would likely never attend or even worse be a part of the event staff. Mixing standard convention activities with a later "adult" convention, plus throwing free booze into the mix . . . yeah, that's asking for some not-good things to happen with lawsuits to follow. Perhaps the conventions new harassment policy takes this into account, but the convention staff should be going out of their way to clearly demarcate the (perhaps) "family-friendly" daytime convention activities from the more racy "adult" nighttime convention activities. It should be in writing, on the website, on the convention program, on the posters on the walls, on event door tags . . . . there should be no doubt in anyone's mind what kind of a room you're stepping into at this convention. But, it's doable! I'm sure that conventions that solely cater to "adult" activities have crafted (and enforced) strong anti-harassment policies, so a gaming convention that caters to a more adult crowd should be able to do so also.

It's always been an...interesting convention. The adult part of the convention wasn't intended that I can tell. It was more of an accidental offshoot over the years. It was a sci-fi/fantasy convention where an entire floor of the convention was taken up by "Con Suites". From what I've been told this isn't a common feature at cons so some people may not have heard of it. But basically, they are rooms in a theme like "pirate room" or "space balls room" where people can just sit down, relax, enjoy some food and drink and soak in the atmosphere while socializing with other people (and likely discussing your favor books or something).

Since the beginning, the con suites have been very popular. To the point where there is a group of people who come to the convention and don't actually attend any panels at all. They hang out on the floor of con suites with their friends drinking and talking all weekend long. This eventually grew into more and more racy "nighttime activities" that almost entirely took place in the con suites. Since the con suites weren't officially put on by the convention(they are literally hotel rooms that people decorated and opened the door to so anyone can walk in), they were left to their own devices for a long time. They were considered a private space run by the owners of the room.

Eventually the convention had to consider them officially part of the con and everything that went with that. But they still tried to keep their distance from meddling in them. Still, there were some events planned that lasted a number of years that were probably horribly inappropriate that were overlooked because no one complained about them. At least one that I'm aware of was officially disbanded by the con and the owners of the suite told to never do it again.

But as more and more of the people who attended the con only do so to go to the con suites and hang out with their friends while drinking (and attend the party with a DJ on Saturday night), the con started getting some panels like the "fandom purity test" where everyone just takes a purity test to see who is the dirtiest so they can laugh about it afterward. It's fairly common knowledge that a lot of people use the convention to meet people for sex. I've heard quite a few people repeat "What happens at KeyCon stays at KeyCon" and I know at least one couple who is monogamous but they are allowed to cheat while at KeyCon. I know that most people know that the term "private con" means the convention that continues in the hotel rooms that aren't part of the con.

I've always felt a little bit uncomfortable at the convention while on the Con Suite floor. I try to avoid going up there now, since it is an entirely different floor than the rest of the convention. I hang out in the gaming room all weekend long where we barely notice the other convention happening, except a periodic train of really drunk people who do a conga line through the gaming room and leave.

But there isn't enough notice about the adult stuff at the con. I wasn't aware it existed for the first 3 years I went. The convention likes to keep it very, very quiet. Basically they stick with their "Some private stuff might happen late at night. Just don't harass anyone or do anything that people don't consent to." policy. It's only in the last couple of years that the "Fandom Purity Test" and "Adult Writing Advice" panels are listed on the schedule as events. Before they just happened quietly in a room somewhere and word of mouth told people where they were.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I could go on...

It's safe to say that the sort of hyper-liberalism run amok that is making strange places of American and British universities is not at the core of the drive to bring awareness to the issue of harassment and abuse of women (and others) in gaming.

Such abuse is part of a much larger problem. One that predates the trends you are observing by a couple thousand years, at least.

I'm seeing a recent trend here and I think people are right in questioning how we should respond to complaints about offense and harassment because there are hypersensitive individuals that will make our community walk on egg shells because of their over-the-top delicate disposition.

Be careful here. And please try very, very hard to be honest about what trends you're seeing, because the women who are speaking out about their experiences of harassment at Cons and game stores are absolutely not being "over the top."

Women are bringing the issue up. Women are experiencing the problem. These are trends.

But these are not the same trends you are concerned about. You're talking about a problem you have with behavior that is taking place largely outside of gaming.

By repeatedly talking about what is happening outside of gaming, you're shifting the focus away from the trends everyone else is trying to talk about and raise awareness of.

For a person to recognize there is a problem in gaming that is largely being perpetrated by white males does not mean a person ascribes to a hyper-liberal ideology, or that the person buys into the idea behind safe spaces and rigger warnings.

Look, when people call for white male gamers to listen to what women are saying, to understand them and to work to fix the problems they are experiencing, it's not pushing an ideology.

Such calls are being made because women in gaming are not always being treated with the basic minimum level of respect that is otherwise afforded to people in public.

It's about human decency. Not about ideology.

I think the vast majority of our community is fine with trying to prevent groping, rape/assault threats, crude and graphic jokes made in public, DM's having people's characters raped, (as well as other forms of harassment), etc.

Given that you just joined this month, I'm going to assume you're relying on people's good intentions, and their understanding of how to behave in general, as opposed to actual knowledge of what EN World users are like based on repeated, regular interactions with them over time.

Which begs the question why you seem to have a problem with the idea that, in general, most people know how to figure out what is and is not appropriate.

But I think adding voices of caution so we don't end up going so far in that direction that we start to include such high standards of speech police that we can't even say the word "crazy" in front of people we don't know isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be characterized as the privileged cis-genderd heterosexual white males trying to hold onto their "top dog" status.

"Don't let the crazy liberals ruin gaming for everyone!" is a separate discussion from the topic of this thread.

I'm going to be mindful and respectful, as I have always been...(snip)

That's pretty much what people are asking for. More mindfulness, more respectfulness, and (therefore) more awareness of others.

Describing it as anything more than that is to mischaracterize what's being discussed here.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.

Careful now. The phrase "it just so happened" suggests the scenario I outlined is either contrived, or otherwise pretty rare.

Neither of which are true.

No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.

Not at all.

You're claiming that my argument leads to a conclusion that is different than what I am saying.

Your counter argument seems to be, "Given that most people know what is appropriate behavior in public, then the majority (i.e., the 99%) of any group of people sitting at a gaming table can determine what is appropriate. Therefore, a complaint from the minority of inappropriate behavior is very likely wrong."

Then you went on to describe why your argument is true, using logic that I had a hard time following, instead of addressing the line by line breakdown of my reasoning.

If you are going to disagree, then please address my reasoning.

 

[Springheel]

And most of this, again, is not about "meritocracy". It is about women getting their butts grabbed and looked down on.

It's certainly not about "women getting their butts grabbed". Not a single person in this thread has defended that kind of behaviour.

The discussion, at least for the last several pages, is whether it's appropriate to "ask no questions" when someone says they have been offended or harrassed. Specific example after specific example has been put forward to demonstrate how this might be a problem, yet for some reason people advocating that position keep avoiding the examples.

 

[Umbran]

And you completely missed the point of the post.

No. I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs. It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported. The post has missed the point of the thread, really.

And this is common - it is rather like the "not all men" argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand.

There has been very little discussion on the morality of women getting groped because the base definition is pretty clear cut.

You say that, but it happens pretty regularly. I had to report such an issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January. There's a large chunk of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they think it is okay for them to do it! Worry about those hose-heads first, and worry about agreeing on hiring practices later. There's a whole lot of supposedly clear-cut stuff that needs to be worked on.

But when we as a society are to a point that we can't openly discuss something as basic as who best qualifies for a particular job, something even more personal like what constitutes "being put down" is going to near impossible to define sufficiently to allow the accessibility you think everyone already has.

Again, no. As I have noted, there is no perfection. But there *is* sufficiency. You seem to suggest that there's going to be this vast minefield of things that are going to get you keel-hauled for doing, and that's just not true.

If the half dozen people active in this thread n your side can't tell agree on where to put the line aside from all or nothing, how can you expect me to know what is safe to say and what isn't when I'm surrounded by hundreds of strangers? It's an impossible standard for anyone and I see no point in pursuing it to the degree that you think I am obligated to.

With respect - some folks in this discussion may not realize it, but they are asking for 100% reliable rules for social interaction - they want to be able to enter an interaction with 100% certainty that either they won't offer offense, or won't be offended (or that any offense they see will with 100% certainty be dealt with). That's making perfect the enemy of good, and isn't realistic. And it isn't even required.

We do not need to work to the goal of nobody ever having something they don't like in front of them. We merely need to bring the number of issues down to the point where they are not oppressive or scary. And, no, we don't need to agree on the details of meritocracy in hiring to reach that.

 

[billd91]

It's always been an...interesting convention. The adult part of the convention wasn't intended that I can tell. It was more of an accidental offshoot over the years. It was a sci-fi/fantasy convention where an entire floor of the convention was taken up by "Con Suites". From what I've been told this isn't a common feature at cons so some people may not have heard of it. But basically, they are rooms in a theme like "pirate room" or "space balls room" where people can just sit down, relax, enjoy some food and drink and soak in the atmosphere while socializing with other people (and likely discussing your favor books or something).

I think this is more common in small conventions than you realize. There are at least 3 conventions a year in Madison, Wisconsin alone that feature fairly open parties run in individual rooms outside of the regular programming - and this includes the fairly tough-minded feminist SF literary convention WisCon. I don't think this is just because we drink a lot in Wisconsin because they're prominent features of other well-known and long-running midwestern conventions like MiniCon and CapriCon.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's pretty much what people are asking for. More mindfulness, more respectfulness, and (therefore) more awareness of others.

Describing it as anything more than that is to mischaracterize what's being discussed here.

I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone. Some amount of offense is always going to happen since everyone has different comfort levels. If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful.

However, what comes across in things like the blog in the original post and similar things that are being posted lately is that the general opinion has turned from "everyone should be respectful and try not to offend anyone" to "you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful. No one is. Be MORE respectful. Don't expect us to tell you what we find offensive, that sounds like you are blaming me. That shouldn't be my responsibility. And I'm afraid of confronting you, so just don't offend me to begin with. And why aren't you doing more to make sure everyone you game with us being respectful as well? If someone else is being offensive, that's your fault as well. If you didn't know they were being offensive, that's your fault as well, you should be more aware of what the community does and says and refuse to allow those people to be part of the community. You should be spending a significant amount of time and effort making sure the community changes for the better. If you aren't, you might as well be perpetuating everything that happens."

I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader. I will treat everyone equally based on their merit.

The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."

 

[Springheel]

After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." Around him. As in, a group.

For the record, I meant "around him" as, the people who were close enough to hear the comment. Not necessarily his own personal gaming group. I could have been clearer.

You say that, but it happens pretty regularly. I had to report such an issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January. There's a large chunk of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they think it is okay for them to do it!

This is covered by the legal definition of sexual assault, is it not? You grab someone's butt without their permission and you can be charged with sexual assault. There's not much room for interpretation or misunderstanding there. That is entirely different than causing "offense".
​