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

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top