D&D Celebrity Satine Phoenix & Husband Jamison Stone Accused Of Abuse Towards Freelancers

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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Maybe we are talking past each other. I am not acting for social interactions to be legislated. I don't know how you would even begin to do that. I just think we should be more compassionate and resist the online rage. Especially when it centers justice on taking away peoples ability to work or to exist. By extrajudicial I just mean that online campaigns of anger directed at individuals (justified and not justified) are yielding consequences that rise to de facto legal outcomes: people losing work, having their lives ruined, being excused from events, from spaces, etc. This is why I think people mention due process. It just feels rather chaotic and cruel sometimes, and like it can easily be directed by bad actors.
Due process is a specific legal term. I assume people mean the words they say. If they don’t then what’s the point of even talking? If they don’t mean due process, perhaps they should stop saying due process. If they do mean due process, then see my previous post.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Due process in the sense that I am using it is not about a court of law. It is about applying principles such as a presumption of innocence and a desire to hear all sides of a case before drawing any conclusions. Let's not pretend that social media is interested in any such principles. I read the tweets in question and I don't see enough evidence to warrant the destruction of these peoples' lives or livelihoods.

I can't really speak to this particular case well, as I found it a pretty deep and time consuming hole to peer into. But speaking more generally I just find the sophistication with which social media handles these controversies is about the level we used to handle social scandal and controversy in high school (and my emotional reaction to a lot of these cases makes me feel like I am in high school again: in a very bad way). On social media it is often less about the truth, and more about who spins the wittiest narrative in the fewest number of characters. Optics often matter more than what's really going on or what really happened and once the narrative is set, its hard for anyone to overcome it, even if they are misunderstood or being misrepresented. That doesn't mean there people should just be allowed to be horrible, but I think we really need to slow down and not rush to judgment, practice consciously hearing people out more and being compassionate in where these things go. And often these things reach a point where people get attacked not for doing anything wrong but taking the 'wrong position' on someone who is believed to have done wrong or is persona non-grata. It really spirals into some ugliness.
 
Last edited:


Due process is a specific legal term. I assume people mean the words they say. If they don’t then what’s the point of even talking? If they don’t mean due process, perhaps they should stop saying due process. If they do mean due process, then see my previous post.

Again, i think the point is that people feel like they've lost some due process because social media has changed things. You can now experience fallout on social media that is comparable to losing a court case because it has permanent and wide impact (again people losing the ability to work, things like that). No one is suggesting a form of due process be implemented for online interactions. They are saying we should think about how these online storms are impacting peoples lives and if we are obfuscating the truth in any way in our anger or our need for immediate consequences. I think people are just saying: maybe bring it down a notch
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Again, i think the point is that people feel like they've lost some due process because social media has changed things. You can now experience fallout on social media that is comparable to losing a court case because it has permanent and wide impact (again people losing the ability to work, things like that). No one is suggesting a form of due process be implemented for online interactions. They are saying we should think about how these online storms are impacting peoples lives and if we are obfuscating the truth in any way in our anger or our need for immediate consequences. I think people are just saying: maybe bring it down a notch
If that’s the case (and I understand you’re not speaking as a representative of everybody) then they should stop using that term, as it obfuscates their message. ‘Tone it down a notch’ at least makes sense, though it’s up to the individual to agree.‘Due process’ just makes it sound like they want the courts to intervene in social interactions.
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
Meh! I'll stick to the unpopular stance that everyone can be an a-hole on their worst day and that social media vastly exacerbates the problem by ensuring that we never have to face the people whose lives we so blithely destroy.

I do not know Jamison or Satine, but if they are like anyone else, there are likely any number of people who would testify to their good character if they did not fear being shouted down and canceled themselves.

Lacking all the context and facts of these people's lives, I choose to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness.
What's compassionate of supporting the people who stole money?
 

vostygg

Explorer
If that’s the case (and I understand you’re not speaking as a representative of everybody) then they should stop using that term, as it obfuscates their message. ‘Tone it down a notch’ at least makes sense, though it’s up to the individual to agree.‘Due process’ just makes it sound like they want the courts to intervene in social interactions.
Fine. I amend my original statement to, "Cancel culture does not adhere to any of the principles associated with due process, including a presumption of innocence and a desire to hear all sides of a case before condemning the accused. It is much more closely akin to mob justice."
 


Mort

Legend
Supporter
Fine. I amend my original statement to, "Cancel culture does not adhere to any of the principles associated with due process, including a presumption of innocence or a desire to hear all sides of a story before condemning the accused. It is much more closely akin to mob justice."

That can certainly be the case. Twitter and the like can often be a plague for people.

Here though, there are receipts. The bullying and wage theft have been documented. It's a good thing the practices were made known or they would continue and the offending parties not only would be undeterred they would be emboldened and enriched.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top