• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

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.
I haven't defended them. I've gone out of my way to point out I can't really comment specially on the situation because I find the rabbit hole rather deep here. This thread is about more than this one situation, and there are aspects of the situation I am comfortable speaking to (like whether there ought to be a concern about the well being of someone after they post a video like that, whether that ought to moderate peoples reactions to them, etc). But most of my commentary has been in response to more general statements about people being raked through the goals on social media for perceived wrong doings and whether social media itself is a good vessel for justice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Choosing to intervene and choosing to participate in a public shaming are two very different things though. And choosing to intervene and stop an attacker from hurting another person, which I agree you should do, and continuing to beat the attacker until they are near death are also two different things. The concerns being raised are about proportionality and the ability of twitter to arrive at a proportionally just outcome
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
I haven't defended them. I've gone out of my way to point out I can't really comment specially on the situation because I find the rabbit hole rather deep here. This thread is about more than this one situation, and there are aspects of the situation I am comfortable speaking to (like whether there ought to be a concern about the well being of someone after they post a video like that, whether that ought to moderate peoples reactions to them, etc). But most of my commentary has been in response to more general statements about people being raked through the goals on social media for perceived wrong doings and whether social media itself is a good vessel for justice.
"Moderate people's reaction". "Raked through the coals". "Perceived wrongdoings." "Good vessel for Justice."

Moderating people's reaction: Seeking to reduce the backlash against the people who have done wrong. This is defending them from backlash. Not defending their -actions-, which you claim to not know enough about, but defending them as people. The distinction is present, but the result is the same. You're trying to ameliorate apparent harm to abusers and that tells victims to stop fighting back.

Raked through the coals: A statement describing a torture. Because a social media backlash is to be compared to violent torture. While your intention is probably to use a common enough turn of phrase in this case it points to "Overreaction". Which again tells victims to stop fighting back.

Perceived Wrongdoings: Maybe they didn't even do anything wrong, despite all the evidence and personal accounts and stuff that you have repeatedly stated you haven't read or learned about or 'weighed'. So stop complaining about it, victims of abuse. Don't fight back.

Good vessel for justice: Stop fighting back unless you take it through the court system, assuming of course you've got the time and money for that particular course of action, and keep it to yourselves so no other victim sees a way to fight back and no other potential victim gets warned in advance.

Your -intention- may not be to defend these folks. But the -result- of your choices doesn't always line up.
Choosing to intervene and choosing to participate in a public shaming are two very different things though. And choosing to intervene and stop an attacker from hurting another person, which I agree you should do, and continuing to beat the attacker until they are near death are also two different things. The concerns being raised are about proportionality and the ability of twitter to arrive at a proportionally just outcome
Jamison Stone raped a woman.

Social Media cannot put the man into prison for his crime.

Ergo there is no point in which Social Media can reach proportionality with the severity of his crimes by our societal norms and laws.

Ipso Facto: Social Media Backlash can never be as just to the victim as the court system, and favors the criminal.

Apply this to all other forms of emotional and economic abuse he and Satine engaged in.
 

Staffan

Legend
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 mean, there are also call center jobs, and all sorts of other jobs where they can make a living without their narcissism hurting anyone else. And there's no shame in such a job. The world needs ditch-diggers, and ditch-diggers should be adequately compensated for their labor.

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.
Thing is that the world does not owe them reformation. That's something they're going to have to figure out on their own. I know I wouldn't touch anything they're involved with with an 11' pole unless there are people I trust (well, as much as you can trust anyone online) saying they're cool. And in the meantime, there are other ways to make a living.

There's a difference between people forced into crime by circumstance and necessity, and people who choose to abuse positions of relative power. The former deserves a chance at redemption, the latter needs a lot of work on restitution to all the people they have wronged (whether in the judicial or personal sense).
 

Jamison Stone raped a woman.

I haven’t defended him for anything at all. And on this, this is the first I am hearing of a Rape accusation. If that’s true I am in no way saying there shouldn’t be legal or social consequences, nor am I saying victims should bd silence. Again most of what I have been talking about is the ability of social media to serve as a platform for effective justice (and the case of these two people my commentary had been focused on concern after seeing her stats at ghdcrbf of the apology video and whether that should have us seeing you roll back the aggression towards her
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
I haven’t defended him for anything at all. And on this, this is the first I am hearing of a Rape accusation. If that’s true I am in no way saying there shouldn’t be legal or social consequences, nor am I saying victims should bd silence. Again most of what I have been talking about is the ability of social media to serve as a platform for effective justice (and the case of these two people my commentary had been focused on concern after seeing her stats at ghdcrbf of the apology video and whether that should have us seeing you roll back the aggression towards her
The fact that this is the first your hearing of it COMPLETELY UNDERMINES the rest of your intentions.

Pontificating over whether social media can be an effective platform for justice requires knowing what has been done and knowing what the social media response to it is and judging the proportionality.

Without knowing what has been done to cause the backlash, you're just talking in circles and wasting time talking about hypotheticals while people are -actually- suffering. You're treating it like it's a thought experiment, something interesting to consider, and in the process saying a lot of stuff like "Perceived Wrongdoing" that flatly tells the people currently suffering that the abuse they received might not even exist.

Go digging. Stop posting. Don't defend yourself against this response, don't dig in your heels, don't reiterate that you're "Just" talking about some thought-construct that isn't really related to the topic at hand.

If you want to weigh things, Bedrock Games, then go find out what you'll be putting on each side of the scale.
 

Ondath

Hero
I mean, there are also call center jobs, and all sorts of other jobs where they can make a living without their narcissism hurting anyone else. And there's no shame in such a job. The world needs ditch-diggers, and ditch-diggers should be adequately compensated for their labor.


Thing is that the world does not owe them reformation. That's something they're going to have to figure out on their own. I know I wouldn't touch anything they're involved with with an 11' pole unless there are people I trust (well, as much as you can trust anyone online) saying they're cool. And in the meantime, there are other ways to make a living.

There's a difference between people forced into crime by circumstance and necessity, and people who choose to abuse positions of relative power. The former deserves a chance at redemption, the latter needs a lot of work on restitution to all the people they have wronged (whether in the judicial or personal sense).
I just can't stand by such an unkind view. If you think the world doesn't owe them reform, that's on you, but I thought the whole point of having a moral community is being better than whatever unjust world we are plunged into.

Everyone deserves a chance for reformation, and while this reformation might not be easy or might require extensive efforts to make amends, denying it outright is immoral IMO. It denies the infinite freedom and dignity all of us inherently have.
 

mythago

Hero
I just can't stand by such an unkind view. If you think the world doesn't owe them reform, that's on you, but I thought the whole point of having a moral community is being better than whatever unjust world we are plunged into.

Everyone deserves a chance for reformation, and while this reformation might not be easy or might require extensive efforts to make amends, denying it outright is immoral IMO. It denies the infinite freedom and dignity all of us inherently have.

“owe” then reform? “Deserves” a chance?

Restorative Justice is never centered on the perpetrator and isn’t about putting their redemption narrative first and foremost.

These people are still trying to image-manage their way out of consequences and yet even as they are trying to ooze right back into their positions, here we go with dressing up anxiety about conflict as a moral imperative.
 

The fact that this is the first your hearing of it COMPLETELY UNDERMINES the rest of your intentions.

Pontificating over whether social media can be an effective platform for justice requires knowing what has been done and knowing what the social media response to it is and judging the proportionality.

Without knowing what has been done to cause the backlash, you're just talking in circles and wasting time talking about hypotheticals while people are -actually- suffering. You're treating it like it's a thought experiment, something interesting to consider, and in the process saying a lot of stuff like "Perceived Wrongdoing" that flatly tells the people currently suffering that the abuse they received might not even exist.

Go digging. Stop posting. Don't defend yourself against this response, don't dig in your heels, don't reiterate that you're "Just" talking about some thought-construct that isn't really related to the topic at hand.

If you want to weigh things, Bedrock Games, then go find out what you'll be putting on each side of the scale.

Again I have mostly been responding to general posts about social media backlash that keep coming up in the discussion not this particular case and regularly explained where I can’t comment on issues specifically around this controversy. but I do think it is still fair for me to react when I see someone who looks like they are in serious distress in an apology video and question whether things are getting out of hand. Doesn’t mean if people were abused there shouldn’t be justice of people should be silent. But does mean we should be cautious if we think s person could be driven to harm themselves.
 

Ondath

Hero
“owe” then reform? “Deserves” a chance?

Restorative Justice is never centered on the perpetrator and isn’t about putting their redemption narrative first and foremost.

These people are still trying to image-manage their way out of consequences and yet even as they are trying to ooze right back into their positions, here we go with dressing up anxiety about conflict as a moral imperative.
Surely you agree that there's a major, useful gap between "Restorative justice should be about the perpetrator" (which isn't what I said, but let's pretend it is) and "people who abused power should be condemned to call centre or warehouse jobs"? I don't think finding the latter too harsh is an extreme view.

Also note that "owing them reform" was the terms used by the person I was quoting. I wouldn't put it that way myself, I think it's rather that a justice system that does not hope for reform as much as possible is not one I'd condone.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top