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 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.

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.

 

[seebs]

Lacking all the context and facts of these people's lives, I choose to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness.

I see the appeal, but I think you may underestimate the harm to victims of being told that their accounts don't matter and aren't real and there's no reason to do anything about the harm done to them. Context only gets you so far, and the consistent pattern in our society of assuming that successful people must be guiltless and disregarding any and all concerns about them is how you get people spending decades abusing people and getting away with it.

It's good to be aware that an accusation could be false, but you seem to be leaping straight to functionally assuming that all accusations are false, and that seems like a pretty strong stance to be arguing for in the absence of any particular evidence for it.

I would defer judgment until I got to know them and was able to draw my own firsthand impressions.

It seems to me that it would make sense to, at the very least, actively investigate allegations like these before "working for or with" people. Because otherwise, if the allegations are true, you're quite possibly going to get screwed over.

 

[Bedrockgames]

“Cancel culture” is two distinct phenomena: one is people choosing not to associate or do business with people for various reasons, usually related to having been accused of some behavior, or having publicly expressed some view that the party ceasing association… doesn’t want to associate with… and the other is cyber bullying. The latter is definitely a serious problem with social media that needs addressing. The former is definitely just normal social dynamics.

It is more than cyber bullying. Even in the former case, it tends to take on a life of its own and become a game of telephone. In some instances it may have some merit, in others not. But from my point of view, I think the consequences often are far out of proportion to what the person is even accused of. Which again is one of the main reasons I just distrust using social media to cancel someone (because social media and large mobs of people on social media are not good ways to achieve a truly just outcome). I am not saying you have to keep following someone or support someone who says stuff you don't like. I just think we've taken things much too far when it comes to how we ostracize and demonize people on social media. And how that ultimately leads to people having a hard time even existing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If someone gets kicked out of a few bars for abusing patrons while there to perform, it isn’t either of those things to not allow them to play at your bar.

I am not arguing against this.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is more than cyber bullying. Even in the former case, it tends to take on a life of its own and become a game of telephone. In some instances it may have some merit, in others not. But from my point of view, I think the consequences often are far out of proportion to what the person is even accused of. Which again is one of the main reasons I just distrust using social media to cancel someone (because social media and large mobs of people on social media are not good ways to achieve a truly just outcome). I am not saying you have to keep following someone or support someone who says stuff you don't like. I just think we've taken things much too far when it comes to how we ostracize and demonize people on social media. And how that ultimately leads to people having a hard time even existing.

I don’t know, what you’re describing sounds exactly like cyber bullying to me.

 

[MNblockhead]

I didn't think ADHD could be so bad.

Reading articles like this has downplayed the severity for me :
"Of the 6.4 million kids who have been given diagnoses of A.D.H.D., a large percentage are unlikely to have any kind of physiological difference that would make them more distractible than the average non-A.D.H.D. kid. It’s also doubtful that biological or environmental changes are making physiological differences more prevalent. Instead, the rapid increase in people with A.D.H.D. probably has more to do with sociological factors — changes in the way we school our children, in the way we interact with doctors and in what we expect from our kids."

Right. And I was one of those kids who probably didn't need to be on Ritalin. I still feel that even people with more severe cases of ADHD likely would have been fine in a hunter-gather society or even a pre-industrial agrarian society. At the nature of schooling and work has changed, and as the numbers of distractions of modern life keep compounding, it is hard for certain people to succeed without medical help. For a long time, I would argue against medication, promoting exercise, diet, removing distractions, using software to help keep you organized and focused, etc. And this is not bad advice. But at some point it, for some people, it becomes shaming them for getting help they and their doctors have determined is needed. It is like telling a chronically depressed person that they should just meditate/pray/exercise instead of medicating themselves. Some people need the medication to thrive.

 

[MNblockhead]

The thing I just shrug about "cancel culture" is that it really seems to me to highlight the difference between those of us who didn't grow up with social media, and the ones that do. Because when you think about it... what is "cancelling"? It is people telling someone "We aren't going to let you be famous anymore."

That's it. That's the punishment. They don't want to see or hear about you online. There's no other forfeiture-- the person doesn't lose any of their money, the person doesn't go to prison, the person doesn't suffer anything physically... nothing like any of that. All it is is "you can't be famous".

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.

Well...it gets much worse than this. I try to avoid the term "cancel culture" for the same reason I avoid "sheeple", "CRT", and other loaded terms that people thrown around as a perjorative and as a lazy substitute for thoughtful dialog. But we can agree, I think, that the ability to bully people--from whatever spot in the political spectrum the bullies sit--is exponentially greater in the era of social media. From elementary school kids to adults at the top of their careers, people have been driven out of careers and to suicide. People are doxed, stalked, harassed, and threatened. Yeah, this terrible behavior has always existed in communities. But the ability to for large groups of people with otherwise weak connections to the targets to pile on is so much greater. And it encourages certain types of people to take it too far--far out of proportion to whatever sin the target is guilty of.

 

[TheSword]

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.

You can’t imprison people so you don’t need due process? There is such a thing as natural justice.

Come on, you live in the UK. You know that an employer has to follow Employment law regulations, even though they can’t fine or imprisonment you.

Every employer in the Uk (and most of Europe) has to give you clear grounds for your misconduct and present you evidence. It has to give you opportunity to reply. It needs to be unbiased. It needs to make a decision after all the facts have been seen and not before. The punishment has to be proportional. Your well-being has to be taken care of throughout the process. It has to be confidential.

Now Satine isn’t in the UK and isn’t an employee. So doesn’t get these protections. But let’s not pretend the only time a person deserves fair treatment is if they’re about to go to prison!

As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?

 

[MNblockhead]

As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?

Have no idea, but I having been involved in legal disputes over business deals that have gone bad, it is expensive, it is time consuming, and it can be quite stressful. For the amount of money in question, even small claims court is likely not worth the hassle for many people. If I agree to work for someone on a small project and that person stiffs me or strings me along, I might not bother going to down the path of litigation, but I would certainly let colleagues and perhaps others in my network know. That's pretty much what seems to be going on. Though, there is litigation as well. Satine seems lacking in business acumen and that combined with an unchecked ego, led her to treat people poorly. She also seems to have enabled, at a minimum by looking the other way, some quite abusive individuals in her professional and social circle.

Calling her out on it publicly is just more effective. As litigious as the US is, etiquette and the social consequences for breaking rule of etiquette, is primarily what governs our behavior.

 

[TheSword]

Have no idea, but I having been involved in legal disputes over business deals that have gone bad, it is expensive, it is time consuming, and it can be quite stressful. For the amount of money in question, even small claims court is likely not worth the hassle for many people. If I agree to work for someone on a small project and that person stiffs me or strings me along, I might not bother going to down the path of litigation, but I would certainly let colleagues and perhaps others in my network know. That's pretty much what seems to be going on. Though, there is litigation as well. Satine seems lacking in business acumen and that combined with an unchecked ego, led her to treat people poorly. She also seems to have enabled, at a minimum by looking the other way, some quite abusive individuals in her professional and social circle.

Calling her out on it publicly is just more effective. As litigious as the US is, etiquette and the social consequences for breaking rule of etiquette, is primarily what governs our behavior.

Sure but the social stigma normally comes from breaking a contract - and therefore getting a reputation for duplicitousness.

 

[vostygg]

Abuse victims have been suffering permanent impacts for time immemorial. Our legal/court systems are ineffective at curbing such abuse. What you see on social media is the predictable and understandable result of allowing the injustice to persist.

In waggling your finger at social media, you miss the root cause of the issue - the abuse. Address that, and the social media issue will be resolved. Meanwhile, telling victims and their friends and allies to shut up and sit down, without doing something material to protect them, is not a good look.

Compassion is always a good look. Calling for moderation and proportionality at a stoning is compassion; it's not the same as siding with abusers. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is the very definition of a false dichotomy.

 

[MNblockhead]

Sure but the social stigma normally comes from breaking a contract - and therefore getting a reputation for duplicitousness.

Not in my experience. More common are clients, colleagues, and vendors who are on the up and up legally, but are difficult to work with. By difficult to work with, that can mean:

* they are overly abrasive or abusive in how they treat people that at some point, while they may be competent, the damage they do to morale makes it not worth working with them.

* poor support and poor communication - they may meet deadlines and the letter of their SLAs, but are unresponsive and unhelpful. You couldn't trust them to be there when you need them and rather than having to tighten up contracts and SLAs and constantly defend your contractual rights, you are just going to use and recommend those who have a culture of good customer service.

In the Satine's case, the failure to pay contractors was what caused the dam to break, but more damning is how she treated people generally. The abuse and prima dona behavior may not have amounted to anything legally actionable but it certainly has damaged her reputation.

If Satine treated everyone with decency and clearly communicated payment issues, but due to poor business skills was unable to pay people in a timely manner, it wouldn't look good, but it would be a lot easier to address and likely more forgivable. It is not just that people did not get paid, but rather that a pattern of dismissive and abusive behavior got to the point where it seems like she felt she was entitled not to pay people. Hell, maybe there are justifiable reasons she was unable to make payments, but her other actions have made it difficult to give a charitable view.

Treat people well as a general rule and they are more likely to forgive a slip up. Treat people poorly and it becomes very difficult to argue that the failure to pay was anything other than another manifestation of your contempt for them.

 

[Staffan]

And even here clearly there is a justice being meted out. You specificity it in your post "people are deciding not to associate or do business". So these people are losing work opportunities, being removed from paid events, etc. I am not saying that should or shouldn't happen, but it is an outcome of twitter being used in this way. If you don't think the person should work int he hobby, fair enough. But for how long? Forever? Do you think they should still even be able work at all in other industries? Should they be barred from creative fields? Should they not be allowed to work in service jobs? Do you think every employer should turn them away? Where should the limit of people deciding not to associate with or do business with them fall? What is the most just outcome? I ask because I feel in these kinds of storms, twitter doesn't do a great job of setting the limits of that outcome and clearly it is an outcome. Something substantive is coming of all this. Which is why I am wary of twitter as an instrument of justice (and against doesn't mean people didn't do things that were bad or that there shouldn't be consequences).

At the very least, neither of these people should ever be in a position where they hold power, formal or informal, over anyone else. Ever.

Personally, I would also be far less likely to watch or enjoy anything where they were involved. I don't think I'm alone in that. So they should probably never be in a public-facing position again, simply because they'd be toxic in any such position.

Which probably means they need to get jobs outside of the entertainment industry. I hear Amazon's hiring.

 

[Mort]

Not in my experience. More common are clients, colleagues, and vendors who are on the up and up legally, but are difficult to work with. By difficult to work with, that can mean:

* they are overly abrasive or abusive in how they treat people that at some point, while they may be competent, the damage they do to morale makes it not worth working with them.

* poor support and poor communication - they may meet deadlines and the letter of their SLAs, but are unresponsive and unhelpful. You couldn't trust them to be there when you need them and rather than having to tighten up contracts and SLAs and constantly defend your contractual rights, you are just going to use and recommend those who have a culture of good customer service.

In the Satine's case, the failure to pay contractors was what caused the dam to break, but more damning is how she treated people generally. The abuse and prima dona behavior may not have amounted to anything legally actionable but it certainly has damaged her reputation.

If Satine treated everyone with decency and clearly communicated payment issues, but due to poor business skills was unable to pay people in a timely manner, it wouldn't look good, but it would be a lot easier to address and likely more forgivable. It is not just that people did not get paid, but rather that a pattern of dismissive and abusive behavior got to the point where it seems like she felt she was entitled not to pay people. Hell, maybe there are justifiable reasons she was unable to make payments, but her other actions have made it difficult to give a charitable view.

Treat people well as a general rule and they are more likely to forgive a slip up. Treat people poorly and it becomes very difficult to argue that the failure to pay was anything other than another manifestation of your contempt for them.

Right, it wasn't just that people weren't getting paid

It was (very clear from the their own writings) that they were bullying and gaslighting people - telling them it was their own fault they weren't getting paid.

That's exactly the kind of behavior that needs to be exposed so it does not continue.

 

[Mort]

Which probably means they need to get jobs outside of the entertainment industry. I hear Amazon's hiring.

I know you're being (at least partially) facetious but (sadly), schmoozing and charming those above you while exploiting and belittling those below you Is a proven effective technique on the American corporate ladder.

Assuming he could keep his temper in check, Stone would likely rise to a top Amazon corporate position in no time.

 

[Staffan]

I know you're being (at least partially) facetious but (sadly), schmoozing and charming those above you while exploiting and belittling those below you Is a proven effective technique on the American corporate ladder.

Assuming he could keep his temper in check, Stone would likely rise to a top Amazon corporate position in no time.

I was thinking more on the warehouse side.

 

[Ondath]

At the very least, neither of these people should ever be in a position where they hold power, formal or informal, over anyone else. Ever.

Personally, I would also be far less likely to watch or enjoy anything where they were involved. I don't think I'm alone in that. So they should probably never be in a public-facing position again, simply because they'd be toxic in any such position.

Which probably means they need to get jobs outside of the entertainment industry. I hear Amazon's hiring.

This seems excessive to me. Living in a society means holding some power over someone else no matter what you do. What you're suggesting is that they should basically be condemned to a life of manual labour, you even imply that with the Amazon comment.

I'm all for people facing the consequences of their actions, but arguing that there should never be a way for abusers to reform is pessimistic and counter productive. By your logic, Dan Harmon should have been kicked out of the industry after harassing Megan Gantz. But instead he took responsibility for his actions and Gantz found his apology and effort to do better to be genuine. If you close the door for reform, you can't have reconciliation of this kind.

It's also counterproductive from a pragmatic standpoint. If the only available answer to abuse of power is barring them from any meaningful job for the rest of their lives, abusers are incentivised to just do what they do more discreetly. If you instead show that some form of reconciliation is possible (and will actually be morally better for them), you have some chance that they will be more willing to be held accountable for what they have done.

 

[Morrus]

You can’t imprison people so you don’t need due process? There is such a thing as natural justice.

Come on, you live in the UK. You know that an employer has to follow Employment law regulations, even though they can’t fine or imprisonment you.

Every employer in the Uk (and most of Europe) has to give you clear grounds for your misconduct and present you evidence. It has to give you opportunity to reply. It needs to be unbiased. It needs to make a decision after all the facts have been seen and not before. The punishment has to be proportional. Your well-being has to be taken care of throughout the process. It has to be confidential.

Now Satine isn’t in the UK and isn’t an employee. So doesn’t get these protections. But let’s not pretend the only time a person deserves fair treatment is if they’re about to go to prison!

As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?

I'm not sure what you mean. We aren't employing them. Or are you suggesting that those who have now chosen not to associate with them should be legally forced to? It's a pretty confusing take and I'm honestly not sure where you're going with it.

 

[Mort]

You can’t imprison people so you don’t need due process? There is such a thing as natural justice.

Come on, you live in the UK. You know that an employer has to follow Employment law regulations, even though they can’t fine or imprisonment you.

Every employer in the Uk (and most of Europe) has to give you clear grounds for your misconduct and present you evidence. It has to give you opportunity to reply. It needs to be unbiased. It needs to make a decision after all the facts have been seen and not before. The punishment has to be proportional. Your well-being has to be taken care of throughout the process. It has to be confidential.

Now Satine isn’t in the UK and isn’t an employee. So doesn’t get these protections. But let’s not pretend the only time a person deserves fair treatment is if they’re about to go to prison!

So are you saying the contractors were wrong to point out bullying and other terrible behavior and should have, instead, kept quiet?

As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?

Litigating a contract is EXPENSIVE, like REALLY expensive. The contractors quite likely couldn't afford it easily.

That said, I know they (Stone and Phoenix) ARE being sued in some capacity ,-; such things take a while to resolve.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I posted the Kickstarter update where the claim was made that writers have been paid. I cannot check the exact details or the contract but if I take that at face value, the deadline for the writing was last October and the contract said that pay was supposably on acceptance. Plus, some writers turned in way more than they were contracted to.

It does not seem bad that there is an acceptance process. Where the failure seemed to be was the time it took - November to March. And then being asked to turn in an invoice (asking for an invoice is common, you need proof via the payment process).

They appeared to have mixed editing with approval. Approval should be skim reading the submission and insuring that reasonable work was submitted. I honestly do not know what to do about asking a writer for 8K words and getting 12K words.

Couple the too long delay (30 days would have been reasonable, 4 months is too long) with condescending and harsh language and you go from a freelancer that is fine with the process to annoyed and mad people.

 

[Steampunkette]

Everyone deserves empathy and compassion. I think people who were abused (and again in this case I haven't dug deep enough to weigh in intelligently on whether that is the case) they deserve compassion. If people haven't been paid, then they deserve compensation. That I am fine with. What I am not fine with, is people saying you have to join in on hating someone or excluding someone.

Then stop posting about a situation you don't understand and instead go digging.

THIS is there the problem is. You're defending complete trash fires from a reasonable tongue-lashing for the awful things they've done, but don't know -what- they've done.

Also the "Weigh intelligently if that is the case" is just horrifying.

"Your abuse doesn't count 'til -I- weigh in on whether it was bad enough to publicly reprimand the people who did it."

The sheer audacity.

Compassion is always a good look. Calling for moderation and proportionality at a stoning is compassion; it's not the same as siding with abusers. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is the very definition of a false dichotomy.

If someone were being stoned, you'd have a point. This is a social backlash for a pair of people who stole from people, didn't fulfill their contracts, and in one case used their authority and misleading intentions to commit coercive rape.

Also: Your false dichotomy callout is disingenuous. If you have an attacker and a victim and you choose not to intervene you have chosen to side with the attacker by allowing the violence to continue. The attacker may continue to violate his victim's rights without opposition.

You didn't "Choose Neither" in that situation, you chose the aggressor.