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


log in or register to remove this ad

I intensely dislike “influencer” culture in general myself having watched social media influencer nearly rip an organization I am a member of apart with their behavior and people not being willing to call them out for their abuse until they put people’s lives and jobs (including my own) on the line because of one of them having a debased and overly inflated sense of self importance in regard to their position in the movement.
I saw something similar with a good friend's job in charity which supported a movement. They got a new person in who fancied themselves an influencer (and certainly this person did have fairly nutso numbers of Insta followers and the like). Said new person proceeded to immediately massively misspend the charity's budget (or such was the view of about 50% of the charity, the other 50% thought the person was "influencing" and going to win new converts and so on - but no converts were forthcoming - they did upset and lose a lot of the older people who donated to the charity though!), then generally try and make the entire charity and to some extent even the entire movement be about themselves (the "influencer"), specifically. The "influencer" really went out of their way to smash up anything the organisation would do which might give publicity to other people in the charity - for example, a world-famous fashion designer wanted to help them out and do a photoshoot with everyone from the charity. The "influencer" wanted the photoshoot to only be them and their two buds. The designer wasn't down with that, and the "influencer" ended up just destroying the entire opportunity and the charity's long relationship with the fashion designer over it. Over time, this really wrecked the charity. More than half the staff quit over a fairly short period, because they didn't want to be support for an egocentric "influencer", they wanted to work on their issue, and the "influencer" behaved worse and worse. Actually they behaved in a way very like that of Satine/Jamison in terms of their utterly contemptuous and sneering language towards people they worked with, in and out of the charity, people in the movement, and just ordinary supporters. Eventually even the "influencer" quit because they didn't think people were being sufficiently nice/servile to them, but demanded that the charity keep paying them as a "freelancer", only now they didn't have to do any work. Which the charity agreed to. Said charity has now been "dead in the water" for years as a result of the damage this person did. Just horrifying.

I had forgotten all about this until you mentioned that, but yeah, it seems like this is an "influencer" way of operating.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I intensely dislike “influencer” culture in general myself having watched social media influencer nearly rip an organization I am a member of apart with their behavior and people not being willing to call them out for their abuse until they put people’s lives and jobs (including my own) on the line because of one of them having a debased and overly inflated sense of self importance in regard to their position in the movement.
There are definitely issues with influencer culture. While some people are influencers because of their already high levels of fame in another field (like Dwayne Johnson, Cristiano Renaldo, or Ariana Grande) and probably have a professional publicist helping them, the set of self-recruited influencers probably overlaps a great deal with the set of raging narcissists. And unless they are also wealthy enough to afford a publicity machine (like the Kardashians), they probably don't have a lot of help keeping their behavior under control.

Fame and wealth, in general, also have a tendency to feed narcissism and entitlement. I'm reminded of a story when Mick Jagger was visiting Saturday Night Live as the guest. He could hold out his hand and demand a soda and an assistant would scurry to provide it. That's gotta warp you a bit. That said, it was his assistant and he was the one paying for it/had it already contracted. He wasn't just imposing up on the SNL writers to be at his beck and call in that way. And that's a significant difference between the Mick Jagger story and the Satine/Jamison story from Tristan and Katie.
 


Michael Linke

Adventurer
Satine was a contractor years ago. WoTC almost always ran contracts for one year. She was not an employee and other than some allegations from one side, there is no proof that anyone at WoTC did anything.

Everyone is assuming that she had some real power, who knows and what the actual situation was. Social media managers tend not to be involved in upper managment decisions.
It's not about whether someone was involved in upper management decisions (she wasn't), it was about who was in charge of handling someone's concern over being asked to work alongside an abuser (she was in charge of it).
 

Could you explain a bit more how this works and why they do this? It seems like the by-far largest company having blacklists and enforcing them with their partners is a great way to enable abusers.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I intensely dislike “influencer” culture in general myself having watched social media influencer nearly rip an organization I am a member of apart with their behavior and people not being willing to call them out for their abuse until they put people’s lives and jobs (including my own) on the line because of one of them having a debased and overly inflated sense of self importance in regard to their position in the movement.
“Influencer culture” isn’t where I direct my ire - celebrity has always been a thing, and celebrity status has always come with great social power; “influencer” is just a dismissive term for celebrities who acquired that status through new media channels. Rather, what I intensely dislike is the way social media has created a market out of leisure activity. In the marketplace of ideas, attention is currency, and that just feels gross.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Rather, what I intensely dislike is the way social media has created a market out of leisure activity. In the marketplace of ideas, attention is currency, and that just feels gross.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that it's repugnant, but this phenomenon isn't new and social media didn't create it.

For as long as there have been stories, there have been stories of the "rich and famous," painting their lifestyles to be more glamorous and enviable than everyone else's. People have made a living for centuries by getting and keeping peoples' attention. It's not a social media thing, it's a society thing.
 

Michael Linke

Adventurer
Rather, what I intensely dislike is the way social media has created a market out of leisure activity.
Social media didn't do that to us. We've had professional golf, professional football, etc for longer than we've been alive.

Reducing what happens on Twitch, for example, to simply "leisure activity" is unfair. You might believe it's leisure activity as a viewer, but the profitable streams have a huge time and effort investment in production and preparation. Streams that truly are just "leisure activity" in front of a camera rarely succeed, unless they are done by an exceptionally charismatic or entertaining presenter, in which case it's not the leisure activity being monetized, but the host themselves.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I get what you're saying, and I agree that it's repugnant, but this phenomenon isn't new and social media didn't create it.

For as long as there have been stories, there have been stories of the "rich and famous," painting their lifestyles to be more glamorous and enviable than everyone else's. People have made a living for centuries by getting and keeping peoples' attention. It's not a social media thing, it's a society thing.
I don’t know if you do get what I’m saying, because I agree that what you describe here is not a new phenomenon at all - it’s essentially the same thing I was expressing in my first sentence. What I’m talking about is not new media celebrity, but the societal drive to turn free time into another form of labor. If you’re just playing a game of D&D, you’re being idle where you could be productive by streaming it. If you’re just eating a meal, you’re being idle where you could be productive by instagramming pictures of it. If you’re just consuming media you’re being idle when you could be productive by publicizing your opinion of it. Society applies constant pressure to produce, produce, produce, which is of course not new at all, but social media has opened the avenue for yet another aspect of our lives that was our own to be commodified and marketed.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top