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

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

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don’t like this comparison. It’s equating having space in a hobbie where youa ctivelly done damage (and in the message didn’t repair fully) to the troubles ex-cons have reintegrating to society. I think ot’s disengenuous and makes light of the troubles people trying to reintegrate suffer.
Nobody is asking the abuser to be excluded from society as a whole, but to face the consequences and make ammends to the people they hurt. Also, if you want to maie comparisons to criminal activity, I’d say it’s fair to stop someone that used their job to commit a crime from ever coming back to that preffession again.
Yeah,I totally think convicts should be reintegration better, but I wouldn't hire a guy who went to prison for embezzlement to be my personal financial advisor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jer

Legend
Supporter
I'm probably going to be at the upper limit of me-as-mean, but, while I completely distance myself from those comments on the livestream and I do think that threats should be persecuted, I also do think that this kind of overreaction had to be expected: she went down the same rabbit hole she's been digging all these years.
The thing is that there is absolutely no way that any kind of public apology was going to go any other way even if she gave the gold standard apology of clearly admitting fault, demonstrating that she was going to make the folks she harmed monetarily whole, and giving some kind of indication of how she planned to change going forward. That's not how this kind of celebrity narrative works - we seem to love our celebrities on the way up, put them on a pedestal, and then savage them mercilessly once their flaws are discovered. As long as there have been celebrities it seems like once you screw up you're going to fall into that narrative arc unless you just leave the public eye and wait for people to forget about you for a while.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Okay, here's a recap of the specific discussion in question.
And I think that says a lot that that's the worst punishment our younger generations can think of to dish out to someone-- wish them to be anonymous. It makes me think that people like JK Rowling and Louie CK are just crying all the way to the bank.
This began the exchange.
I mean it's not actually a punishment in anything but their minds because rarely are canceled people deplatformed and rarely are people universally deplatformed. That's why we get to still hear them screaming after they apparently lost all their ability to reach people.

Basically, our best punishment is sending a kid to their room where all their toys are.
This was your response to the exchange, a couple replies in.
Hardly. Joss Whedon had several projects cancelled and is barely working now, Satine and Jamison had basically their whole current careers pulled out from under them, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that it is extremely painful for the vast majority of people to have the people around them turn against them.

Besides which, so what? What’s your point?
I replied pointing out that there are actual tangible consequences quite often, and that the intangible consequences you're being so dismissive of as to act like they aren't really consequences are in fact significant. Literally not a single word eliciting any sympathy for anyone, in the whole post. Just pointing out that people lose work, and that social/reputational consequences are real consequences.

And you never answered my question. What on earth even is your point?
Is there a point to this?

Regardless of if I got your intended message, I pretty clearly read the post. Either clarify or let it go. Stop alleging I didn't read the thing I obviously read.
So, having summed up the exchange that you replied to my post in, do you get it?

If not, feel free to just drop it, because I'm not going to try to spell it out any more than this.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Yeah,I totally think convicts should be reintegration better, but I wouldn't hire a guy who went to prison for embezzlement to be my personal financial advisor.
I probably would, actually. Such a person would know the job inside and out, and would be intimately familiar with the laws and regulatory requirements. And they would also know that they are being watched, like a hawk, by nearly everyone.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The thing is that there is absolutely no way that any kind of public apology was going to go any other way even if she gave the gold standard apology of clearly admitting fault, demonstrating that she was going to make the folks she harmed monetarily whole, and giving some kind of indication of how she planned to change going forward. That's not how this kind of celebrity narrative works - we seem to love our celebrities on the way up, put them on a pedestal, and then savage them mercilessly once their flaws are discovered. As long as there have been celebrities it seems like once you screw up you're going to fall into that narrative arc unless you just leave the public eye and wait for people to forget about you for a while.
This is true, though I'd point out that she has at least enumerated a plan for how she is going to change her behaviors going forward. if she follows up, great. If not, it won't mean anything and she'll just prove herself a liar.

Either way, IMO the only things wrong with her apology is that the stream was very ill-considered, this was not the time to get nitpicky about details or be defensive, and it's overly long-winded and meandering, rather than getting straight to the point.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I probably would, actually. Such a person would know the job inside and out, and would be intimately familiar with the laws and regulatory requirements. And they would also know that they are being watched like a hawk.
Well, maybe as an individual taking that risk, but a corporate hire is probably right out.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That seems rather stupidly harsh then. Having everybody kick the crap out of someone not to punish them, but to warn others "Don't be like this person!"?
That is pretty plainly not what I said, nor is cancelling someone analogous to "kicking the crap out of someone".
What a lovely way to keep yourself guilt-free. You never have to feel bad about anything to do to this person you're repeatedly crapping on and kicking while they're down, because it isn't about them... it's about everyone else you're just sending warnings to.

If that's really the whole point, then my god all these people are truly a-holes as well.
You seem to be avidly determined to mischaracterize cancellation as a social practice in order to demonize those who engage in it.

Please don't reply to me any further in this thread.
 

Dausuul

Legend
I probably would, actually. Such a person would know the job inside and out, and would be intimately familiar with the laws and regulatory requirements. And they would also know that they are being watched, like a hawk, by nearly everyone.
If they had that kind of intimate familiarity with the law and awareness of scrutiny, how'd they get caught in the first place? More likely they were sloppy and greedy and shortsighted. They found themselves in a position where they had access to money, and grabbed it after a) convincing themselves it was legal, b) convincing themselves they'd never be caught, or c) not thinking about it at all. Then it turned out it wasn't legal and they did get caught.

Most criminals are not scheming masterminds... or, at least, the ones who get caught aren't.
 



Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
How are us sad nobodies, who are essentially the plankton of all industries (basically the food from which everything grows off, but never respected or cared about) supposed to actually stand up to the abusers without others having our backs?

If everyone just minded their business, the abusers just plain win and get to keep doing what they're doing.
This. I don't think it's great to personally spew bile at S&J; meeting toxicity with toxicity isn't good. But we all, as consumers of this industry and community members of this hobby, have a responsibility to each other to keep our community safe, friendly, and open. And that means making it clear that abusers aren't welcome.
 

If they had that kind of intimate familiarity with the law and awareness of scrutiny, how'd they get caught in the first place? More likely they were sloppy and greedy and shortsighted. They found themselves in a position where they had access to money, and grabbed it after a) convincing themselves it was legal, b) convincing themselves they'd never be caught, or c) not thinking about it at all. Then it turned out it wasn't legal and they did get caught.

Most criminals are not scheming masterminds.
Yeah, that's the problem.

There are two likely scenarios here:

1) They were smart, and doing this a clever way, and only got caught because of bad luck.

In which case, they may well do it again, because they'll be smart enough to know it was bad luck, and to work new methods.

2) They were doing some really lazy/incompetent embezzling, which is like 95% of embezzling, like the classic "just use the company credit card to pay for personal stuff for a long time and never tell anyone*".

In which case they have no special skills, probably aren't very smart, and probably won't behave any better in future.

In neither case would it be smart to hire them for a position with any access to company funds.


* = The awful influencer I mentioned earlier did that - just used the company credit card they'd foolishly been issued to pay for loads of personal stuff. They then brazened it out when confronted and said they thought it was fine and no-one had told them it wasn't (this was definitely not true - rather the first two people who told them, the influencer just said they were wrong and she wasn't going to listen to them, and kept on doing it, albeit suddenly it became a bit more plausibly deniable, like it didn't fit what was allowed in company rules at all, but it was stuff that could be lied about, like very expensive meals which could be said to be with supporters/celebs, even though there was zero evidence to support that, like no pictures, despite this person being selfie-obsessed), and because they were this higher-profile person, and quite a bully, a lot of people didn't want to pursue it. In most organisations though that would not have ended well.
 

Fandabidozi

Explorer
I probably would, actually. Such a person would know the job inside and out, and would be intimately familiar with the laws and regulatory requirements. And they would also know that they are being watched, like a hawk, by nearly everyone.
They would also know you were a sucker and fleece you for everything you got.
 



DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Someone tell doctorbadwolf (since they don't want me to respond to them directly) that my comments were made directly off of what they specifically said. If they misspoke or it turned out I misunderstood what they were trying to imply... then they're free to be more clear if they wish to be. But when the statement is "Cancelling is a warning to other people in a community.", there's not much ambiguity there and my response was directly off of that.

But if they don't wish to clear it up... that's cool too. Doesn't matter.
 


Michael Linke

Adventurer
Sure, and that’s absolutely your right. It would also be your right to put the same dedication into your miniature painting and not sell them.
Suppose money IS an object. You have a set amount of money you can spend per month on models to paint, and a fixed amount of space to store the models you've painted. Selling models you're willing to part with frees up space to store and display more models, and gives you access to funds to buy additional models to paint above your tight monthly hobby budget.

Making money and showing dedication aren't mutually exclusive.
 

mythago

Hero
The thing is that there is absolutely no way that any kind of public apology was going to go any other way even if she gave the gold standard apology of clearly admitting fault, demonstrating that she was going to make the folks she harmed monetarily whole, and giving some kind of indication of how she planned to change going forward.

Sometimes the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gets the poll numbers back up.

That's not how this kind of celebrity narrative works - we seem to love our celebrities on the way up, put them on a pedestal, and then savage them mercilessly once their flaws are discovered. As long as there have been celebrities it seems like once you screw up you're going to fall into that narrative arc unless you just leave the public eye and wait for people to forget about you for a while.

"Flaws are discovered"? "Fall" into a narrative arc? These people cultivated celebrity status for profit and used that status to intentionally cause harm to others who annoyed them or got in their way. They didn't trip and accidentally anger the slavering mob over a minor slight.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Epic Threats

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top