Harassment in gaming

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Justifying a measure by the most appealing results is a poor test. If you want to vet a rule, place it in the hands of the people you think most likely to abuse it and then use that data point for evaluation. For instance, if you think that outing the real life identity of an internet troll to your friends is a good idea, do you also think that an internet troll being about to out your identity to his friends is a good idea?

Also, if I found out that a friend of my was sending rape threats to anyone, much less someone else I know, re-evaluating the friendship would be the least of that fallout.

DOxing (I think that is the right word) is a major issue. There are reasons not to want anyone to talk about our real names here or anyhere...

 

[LordEntrails]

Harassment policies are pretty much absolutely required. The problem with many policies, though, is that they're incomplete.

<snip>

Many of your other questions are much more personal in nature. It's up to you if you want to wear a shirt. I like the idea of con management/contacts for a harassment policy to be identifiable via such a thing -- advertisement of the policy and functional at the same time. It's up to you if you participate in a store that doesn't post a policy. It's up to you if you want to have a personal policy at your table -- just make sure it doesn't run afoul of any store or con policies.

It's up to you if you want to intercede or report a specific incident. I'd strongly encourage you do to so, even if it's just at the level of 'that's not cool!' Often, just challenging a behavior with such a statement can immediately stop the behavior (and sometimes not). We each must judge our involvement ourselves. I stand up, call out the behavior, and will report it if it has crossed the line from accidental to intentional or is severe enough, or if the situation isn't resolved immediately. Sometime it can be handled at the table, sometimes it must be escalated. As with all human interaction, there's no set of rules for which is which.

I think parts of my post that I did not write and assumed would be understood weren't. My oversight.

Of course I can do these things. I wasn't asking what an individual could do. I was trying to ask what we, the gaming community (or at least a set of "us") are actually willing to do?

I think most of us would intercede if we saw such an event occurring. If it happened at a con or your local game store and the management didn't take action (and what action?), would you walk out and never return? Of course we have to try to take effective action(s). But what actions are "we" willing to take?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think parts of my post that I did not write and assumed would be understood weren't. My oversight.

Of course I can do these things. I wasn't asking what an individual could do. I was trying to ask what we, the gaming community (or at least a set of "us") are actually willing to do?

I think most of us would intercede if we saw such an event occurring. If it happened at a con or your local game store and the management didn't take action (and what action?), would you walk out and never return? Of course we have to try to take effective action(s). But what actions are "we" willing to take?

Are you asking each person to answer, or are you talking generally? I couched my response in terms of what I expect from the generic you.

 

[LordEntrails]

Are you asking each person to answer, or are you talking generally? I couched my response in terms of what I expect from the generic you.

There I go again, not being very clear

I actually don't know what I expect. I hope each person asks and answers these questions to themselves.

But, after 67 pages of discussion, what, if anything concrete is going to come from the time and consideration people have spent on this issue. Is it simply going to be a thread were people discuss their views, feel good about themselves for the stances they take on this forum? Or, is a movement going to be started that generates some "charter" and takes some actions?

For me personally, I plan to create a few sentences that I include in game descriptions when I put together an online game open to the public (FG Daze, FG Con, etc). I'm willing to walk out of a store or con and never come back if management refuses to appropriately handle a situation. But, none of that is a stretch for me, as I don't often go to stores or cons. I'm willing to help develop and support such a "charter". I'm willing to do other things if presented with a reasonably effective plan.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Justifying a measure by the most appealing results is a poor test. If you want to vet a rule, place it in the hands of the people you think most likely to abuse it and then use that data point for evaluation. For instance, if you think that outing the real life identity of an internet troll to your friends is a good idea, do you also think that an internet troll being about to out your identity to his friends is a good idea?

Also, if I found out that a friend of my was sending rape threats to anyone, much less someone else I know, re-evaluating the friendship would be the least of that fallout.

There are boards in which my identity is fully known. Now, I'd rather trolls not know who I am and other stuff, but I guarantee you that if I were fully revealed in retaliation for revealing a troll, the troll would have a harder time of it. My secrets are small things, and would not up harm me and mine so much as being exposed to making crimially actionable threats on the Internet.

At any rate, I was also unable to access ENWorld for some time today, starting while I was editing the post you're responding to. I meant to continue:

Another alternative to harassment, shunning, voting with dollars/feet is constructive engagement. I've seen some powerful examples of it working in real life- one reason why I don't use message board ignore lists. The one I took to heart was that of a Rabbi who was getting phoned threats of violence from a neo-Nazi. Instead of hanging up, or yelling or any of the normal, expended reactions, the Rabbi always asked the caller why he was doing what he was doing, in a calm, clear "fatherly" voice.

After many months of this, the harassment stopped, and caller asked to meet the Rabbi. They met several times, and eventually, the Rabbi convinced him to give up his hatred. The man started getting his "88", swastika and other tattoos removed.

More time passed, and the former white supremacist married a Hispanic woman. The story ended when the man got a terminal diagnosis, and he & his wife spent his final days living with the Rabbi's family.

That is the power of constructive engagement. We can't all be as strong as that Rabbi, but his story gives us a an example to aim for, and an idea of what we can achieve if we try.

 

[doseyclwn]

What I as a man need to realize is that if I had grown up and been subject to the kind of harassment that women are unfortunately subject to in Nerd culture, I might be more sensitive to it than your Avg. White Guy. So while something may not be offensive to me, I don't get to decide if it's offensive for someone else. And I've never ever felt stifled by that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are boards in which my identity is fully known. Now, I'd rather trolls not know who I am and other stuff, but I guarantee you that if I were fully revealed in retaliation for revealing a troll, the troll would have a harder time of it. My secrets are small things, and would not up harm me and mine so much as being exposed to making crimially actionable threats on the Internet.

At any rate, I was also unable to access ENWorld for some time today, starting while I was editing the post you're responding to. I meant to continue:

Another alternative to harassment, shunning, voting with dollars/feet is constructive engagement. I've seen some powerful examples of it working in real life- one reason why I don't use message board ignore lists. The one I took to heart was that of a Rabbi who was getting phoned threats of violence from a neo-Nazi. Instead of hanging up, or yelling or any of the normal, expended reactions, the Rabbi always asked the caller why he was doing what he was doing, in a calm, clear "fatherly" voice.

After many months of this, the harassment stopped, and caller asked to meet the Rabbi. They met several times, and eventually, the Rabbi convinced him to give up his hatred. The man started getting his "88", swastika and other tattoos removed.

More time passed, and the former white supremacist married a Hispanic woman. The story ended when the man got a terminal diagnosis, and he & his wife spent his final days living with the Rabbi's family.

That is the power of constructive engagement. We can't all be as strong as that Rabbi, but his story gives us a an example to aim for, and an idea of what we can achieve if we try.

While I appreciate your anecdote, it really doesn't have much at all to do with the idea of doxxing people, does it? Now, don't get me wrong, the kind of engagement in your story is fantastic, but it's a bit optimistic to expect that people being harassed will maintain enough detachment to do that (the rabbi in your story is inspiring). It is also an example of that tactic working -- it doesn't often. People that hate faced with reason and kindness will often just go look for another target and not stop to listen. So, while your tale is truly inspiring, it's also a best case example of a truly self-possessed victim and a perpetrator willing to listen. It's not a good model for general cases.

And doxxing is still a bad idea.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I as a man need to realize is that if I had grown up and been subject to the kind of harassment that women are unfortunately subject to in Nerd culture, I might be more sensitive to it than your Avg. White Guy. So while something may not be offensive to me, I don't get to decide if it's offensive for someone else. And I've never ever felt stifled by that.

Ah, the kafkatrap, again. First you describe a situation that most right thinking people would find horrible -- a life of harassment. Then you introduce the identity politics -- it's white men that can't recognize the problem. Then you establish that you should either accept that you should be in the blame group because you don't get it, or that you explicitly condone the harassment. Thing is, I don't have to accept your framework to do good against harassment.

The core of your statement is the one truth, but it's a trivial one. Without the identity politics baggage, you're just essentially saying that empathy is good -- trying to understand the situation from a victim's point of view is a good thing to do. And, to that, I have no issue. It's trivially obvious that empathy is a good thing. But the cloak of identity politics draped over this -- women, white men, accept guilt for your group -- distorts the essential goodness of the empathy. It turns it into a signalling device to position yourself as a defender of the downtrodden with you having done nothing except publicly state that you're okay with your group guilt -- that you accept the condemnation. All that does is give you the illusion of a moral high ground to lecture others on their guilty natures, which they come to by accident of genetics. Essentially, your statement is nothing more than a statement of political tribalism. It does nothing to advance or correct the problem -- it just makes you feel better and superior to others because you've accepted your place in the framework, which, regardless of the guilt assigned to your group, is defined as superior to anyone that hasn't accepted the guilt.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There I go again, not being very clear

I actually don't know what I expect. I hope each person asks and answers these questions to themselves.

But, after 67 pages of discussion, what, if anything concrete is going to come from the time and consideration people have spent on this issue. Is it simply going to be a thread were people discuss their views, feel good about themselves for the stances they take on this forum? Or, is a movement going to be started that generates some "charter" and takes some actions?

For me personally, I plan to create a few sentences that I include in game descriptions when I put together an online game open to the public (FG Daze, FG Con, etc). I'm willing to walk out of a store or con and never come back if management refuses to appropriately handle a situation. But, none of that is a stretch for me, as I don't often go to stores or cons. I'm willing to help develop and support such a "charter". I'm willing to do other things if presented with a reasonably effective plan.

This isn't a problem that will be solved by an ENWorld discussion. The realistic aims of such a discussion as this is awareness of the scope of the problem, and that's being achieved. Even Danny, who's already predisposed to help, has stated that he wasn't even aware of the scope of this problem. That means that he wouldn't be looking for a problem and would likely have overlooked minor events because he wasn't paying attention. He's paying attention, now, and won't overlook the small things that create the culture that more readily accepts the grosser behaviors. That's progress, and he's not the only one in just this thread that's said that they're not more aware.

I think people are calibrated to expect that any problem should be solved in a short time. That's not reality, and it's certainly not reality when dealing with cultural issues. The best and most through changes in culture are the ones that occur from within, not the ones forced on from without. And, while this is a problem that is heinous in nature, it's still a cultural one, so awareness is the best weapon to fight it. In the meantime, do whatever you feel is right for you to continue to raise awareness and don't tolerate harassment in your games or in your venues.

 

[Umbran]

I am taking bits out of order here, because a relevant point got raised late in the post I'm responding to, but it shold be addressed earliy in the response.

For what purpose are you letting others know?

This one is actually pretty easy.

Doxxing to enable harassment is a problem. However, if you release the address and name of a person *who has committed harassment* or made threats, you are now enabling proper legal action (see below). As you've already noted, online harassment is enabled by anonymity. Breaking that anonymity, while not sufficient, is a *required* step in addressing the issue.

But, let's say that you can identify someone, and they don't get a mountain of harassment aimed at them (best case). What's the point? That wouldn't prevent or even much dissuade the behavior; they can continue to say what they said before, if less anonymously.

Um, no. Harassment is generally *illegal*. It is not protected speech. For example, in my state of Massachusetts:

MA General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 265:
Section 43A. (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

So, what you get out of it is enabling legal action.

I have an immediate negative reaction to calls for exposure because that seems like a call for retribution, for abuse to be applied to the abusers.

Yeah, there's this thing we call, "punishment". Perhaps you've heard of it. The Rabbi mentioned above notwithstanding, our psychological sciences have not progressed to the point where we can regularly and reliably correct bad behavior through purely positive means. We occasionally (actually, regularly) need to use some forces on bad actors that are not pleasant. Until you can state a workable alternative, your rejection of it does not constitute constructive criticism.

Can we agree that there is inadequate recourse available through legal channels at this point? Given a justice system that is overburdened, police forces that are not trained or equipped to deal with internet issues, and those forces being largely male and unfortunately often dismissive of rape, much less harassment against women, I mean?

So, in the face of inadequate legal recourse for an illegal act... you expect folks to just sit there and take it? Are you trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self defense when the cops aren't willing or able to intervene?