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

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.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top