D&D Celebrity Satine Phoenix & Husband Jamison Stone Accused Of Abuse Towards Freelancers

D&D influencer Satine Phoenix, and her husband Jamison Stone, who run tabletop gaming company Apotheosis Studios, have been accused of abusive behavior towards freelancers and contracted workers. Satine Phoenix is a well-known D&D personality and creator, and was the D&D Community Manager for about a year back in 2018. Both she and Stone have appeared in many events and streaming shows, and...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D&D influencer Satine Phoenix, and her husband Jamison Stone, who run tabletop gaming company Apotheosis Studios, have been accused of abusive behavior towards freelancers and contracted workers.

Satine Phoenix is a well-known D&D personality and creator, and was the D&D Community Manager for about a year back in 2018. Both she and Stone have appeared in many events and streaming shows, and have worked with WotC, Geek & Sundry, and other companies. Recently their Kickstarter campaign Sirens: Battle of the Bards raised over $300,000. At GaryCon, a US gaming convention, the couple held a public wedding.

sirens.jpg

Accusations were initially leveled last week against Stone by tattooist Chad Rowe, who tweeted about the abusive way in which Stone, as his client at the time, treated him. The artist was "insulted, berated, and talked down to as if I was a lesser person". Other reports started to roll in as people shared similar experiences, with people revealing how they had been bullied by them, and how the pair frequently portrayed themselves as 'better' than those they worked with. At the time of writing there have been many such reports including one from voice actress and designer Liisa Lee who was subjected to underhanded business practices by Phoenix and her then partner Ruty Rutenberg. Others indicated difficulties in getting paid for work done for Stone and Phoenix or their company.

Lysa Penrose reported on problematic interactions while Phoenix worked at WotC, who was the primary point of contact regarding a report of abuse. Penrose reports that Phoenix failed to pass on the reports of abuse, and continued to publicly associate with the abuser.

Jamison Stone has since resigned as CEO of Apotheosis Studios (though the pair do own the company) and issued a long apology which has been widely criticized. Phoenix released a statement about a week later. Screenshots leaked from a private channel indicate that they have adopted a strategy of shifting the blame onto Stone, so that Phoenix's public image remain intact, with Stone writing “I also am ensuring behind the scenes ... we shield Satine as much as physically possible from damage.”

D&D In A Castle, which is an event which hosts D&D games run by professional DMs in a weekend break in a castle, has dropped the pair from its lineup, as has Jasper's Game Day, an organization which works to prevent suicides. Origins Game Fair, at which the couple are celebrity guests, removed Stone from its guest list, but not Phoenix, stating that "staff assessed that there was no immediate risk of physical harm".

According to ComicBook.com. former collaborator of Phoenix, Ruty Rutenberg, is suing Phoenix, alleging misappropriation of $40,000 of stream network Maze Arcana's money.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We can't imprison or fine anybody, or deprive them of life or liberty. A court of law is not required to determine social consequences. The very idea that a court of law should be needed before one decides how to legally and non-violently react to somebody's behaviour is waaaaaaay beyond anything I think anybody would reasonably suggest. So let's not throw around legal terms like 'due process' and the like unless you want a judge to intervene every time you disagree with somebody. We're not there yet in our society, fortunately.

I do think there is a big difference between people expressing opinions and the dogpiling that happens, the ostracism, the exclusion and the resulting loss of work and livelihood people do experience online storms. I definitely can see how it feels like an extrajudicial process is unfolding in many circumstances. People should be free to express their opinions. I think the issue is a lot of social media controversies make institutions, employers and platforms afraid to work with people for fear of guilt by association. Peoples lives do get ruined by this stuff. And I don't think any good comes in taking pleasure in someone losing the ability to put a roof over their head or food on the table. It spans the gamut of course. But I have been pretty uncomfortable with a lot of what I have seen in terms of how cruel people are to one another, even when they feel justified, or have justification for anger, on social media, especially in gaming circles in the past few years. In general I think there is a lot of anger, a lot of people not seeing one another as real human beings. Overall I think the hobby would benefit from more compassion
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Parmandur

Book-Friend
L


Of course there are people who could/would testify to their good character. But from all available evidence these people would be people in positions to benefit this couple.

That's the their true issue - they punch down. They abuse and exploit those that can't hit them back. Or at least those that they thought couldn't hit them back. Had they not done that and shown a modicum of respect to their employees/contractors etc. They wouldn't be in this mess.
That's the crazy making part: if they didn't abuse and harm and backbite...they wouldn't just still have careers, they would be further advanced than they got!
 



Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I do think there is a big difference between people expressing opinions and the dogpiling that happens, the ostracism, the exclusion and the resulting loss of work and livelihood people do experience online storms. I definitely can see how it feels like an extrajudicial process is unfolding in many circumstances. People should be free to express their opinions. I think the issue is a lot of social media controversies make institutions, employers and platforms afraid to work with people for fear of guilt by association. Peoples lives do get ruined by this stuff. And I don't think any good comes in taking pleasure in someone losing the ability to put a roof over their head or food on the table. It spans the gamut of course. But I have been pretty uncomfortable with a lot of what I have seen in terms of how cruel people are to one another, even when they feel justified, or have justification for anger, on social media, especially in gaming circles in the past few years. In general I think there is a lot of anger, a lot of people not seeing one another as real human beings. Overall I think the hobby would benefit from more compassion
Feeling uncomfortable with it and asking for social interactions to be legislated are very different things, though. That's a heck of a step I don't think any of us want? I mean, do we?
 

vostygg

Explorer
We can't imprison or fine anybody, or deprive them of life or liberty. A court of law is not required to determine social consequences. The very idea that a court of law should be needed before one decides how to legally and non-violently react to somebody's behaviour is waaaaaaay beyond anything I think anybody would reasonably suggest. So let's not throw around legal terms like 'due process' and the like unless you want a judge to intervene every time you disagree with somebody. We're not there yet in our society, fortunately.
Due process in the sense that I am using it is not about a court of law. It is about applying principles such as a presumption of innocence and a desire to hear all sides of a case before drawing any conclusions. Let's not pretend that social media is interested in these principles. I read the tweets in question and I don't see enough evidence to warrant the destruction of these peoples' lives or livelihoods.
 
Last edited:

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Due process in the sense that I am using it is not about a court of law. It is about applying principles such as a presumption of innocence and a desire to hear all sides of a case before drawing any conclusions. I read the tweets in question and I don't see enough evidence to warrant the destruction of these peoples' lives or livelihoods.

But again, their lives and livelihoods are based, a good deal, on dealing with employees and contractors.

Again, knowing what you know, would you work for or even with these people?

Exposing terrible business practices is not "ruining these people's lives" it is ensuring THEY don't ruin more people's lives.
 

Feeling uncomfortable with it and asking for social interactions to be legislated are very different things, though. That's a heck of a step I don't think any of us want? I mean, do we?

Maybe we are talking past each other. I am not acting for social interactions to be legislated. I don't know how you would even begin to do that. I just think we should be more compassionate and resist the online rage. Especially when it centers justice on taking away peoples ability to work or to exist. By extrajudicial I just mean that online campaigns of anger directed at individuals (justified and not justified) are yielding consequences that rise to de facto legal outcomes: people losing work, having their lives ruined, being excused from events, from spaces, etc. This is why I think people mention due process. It just feels rather chaotic and cruel sometimes, and like it can easily be directed by bad actors.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top