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

seebs

Adventurer
Lacking all the context and facts of these people's lives, I choose to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness.
I see the appeal, but I think you may underestimate the harm to victims of being told that their accounts don't matter and aren't real and there's no reason to do anything about the harm done to them. Context only gets you so far, and the consistent pattern in our society of assuming that successful people must be guiltless and disregarding any and all concerns about them is how you get people spending decades abusing people and getting away with it.

It's good to be aware that an accusation could be false, but you seem to be leaping straight to functionally assuming that all accusations are false, and that seems like a pretty strong stance to be arguing for in the absence of any particular evidence for it.

I would defer judgment until I got to know them and was able to draw my own firsthand impressions.
It seems to me that it would make sense to, at the very least, actively investigate allegations like these before "working for or with" people. Because otherwise, if the allegations are true, you're quite possibly going to get screwed over.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

“Cancel culture” is two distinct phenomena: one is people choosing not to associate or do business with people for various reasons, usually related to having been accused of some behavior, or having publicly expressed some view that the party ceasing association… doesn’t want to associate with… and the other is cyber bullying. The latter is definitely a serious problem with social media that needs addressing. The former is definitely just normal social dynamics.

It is more than cyber bullying. Even in the former case, it tends to take on a life of its own and become a game of telephone. In some instances it may have some merit, in others not. But from my point of view, I think the consequences often are far out of proportion to what the person is even accused of. Which again is one of the main reasons I just distrust using social media to cancel someone (because social media and large mobs of people on social media are not good ways to achieve a truly just outcome). I am not saying you have to keep following someone or support someone who says stuff you don't like. I just think we've taken things much too far when it comes to how we ostracize and demonize people on social media. And how that ultimately leads to people having a hard time even existing.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It is more than cyber bullying. Even in the former case, it tends to take on a life of its own and become a game of telephone. In some instances it may have some merit, in others not. But from my point of view, I think the consequences often are far out of proportion to what the person is even accused of. Which again is one of the main reasons I just distrust using social media to cancel someone (because social media and large mobs of people on social media are not good ways to achieve a truly just outcome). I am not saying you have to keep following someone or support someone who says stuff you don't like. I just think we've taken things much too far when it comes to how we ostracize and demonize people on social media. And how that ultimately leads to people having a hard time even existing.
I don’t know, what you’re describing sounds exactly like cyber bullying to me.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I didn't think ADHD could be so bad.

Reading articles like this has downplayed the severity for me :
"Of the 6.4 million kids who have been given diagnoses of A.D.H.D., a large percentage are unlikely to have any kind of physiological difference that would make them more distractible than the average non-A.D.H.D. kid. It’s also doubtful that biological or environmental changes are making physiological differences more prevalent. Instead, the rapid increase in people with A.D.H.D. probably has more to do with sociological factors — changes in the way we school our children, in the way we interact with doctors and in what we expect from our kids."
Right. And I was one of those kids who probably didn't need to be on Ritalin. I still feel that even people with more severe cases of ADHD likely would have been fine in a hunter-gather society or even a pre-industrial agrarian society. At the nature of schooling and work has changed, and as the numbers of distractions of modern life keep compounding, it is hard for certain people to succeed without medical help. For a long time, I would argue against medication, promoting exercise, diet, removing distractions, using software to help keep you organized and focused, etc. And this is not bad advice. But at some point it, for some people, it becomes shaming them for getting help they and their doctors have determined is needed. It is like telling a chronically depressed person that they should just meditate/pray/exercise instead of medicating themselves. Some people need the medication to thrive.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
The thing I just shrug about "cancel culture" is that it really seems to me to highlight the difference between those of us who didn't grow up with social media, and the ones that do. Because when you think about it... what is "cancelling"? It is people telling someone "We aren't going to let you be famous anymore."

That's it. That's the punishment. They don't want to see or hear about you online. There's no other forfeiture-- the person doesn't lose any of their money, the person doesn't go to prison, the person doesn't suffer anything physically... nothing like any of that. All it is is "you can't be famous".

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.
Well...it gets much worse than this. I try to avoid the term "cancel culture" for the same reason I avoid "sheeple", "CRT", and other loaded terms that people thrown around as a perjorative and as a lazy substitute for thoughtful dialog. But we can agree, I think, that the ability to bully people--from whatever spot in the political spectrum the bullies sit--is exponentially greater in the era of social media. From elementary school kids to adults at the top of their careers, people have been driven out of careers and to suicide. People are doxed, stalked, harassed, and threatened. Yeah, this terrible behavior has always existed in communities. But the ability to for large groups of people with otherwise weak connections to the targets to pile on is so much greater. And it encourages certain types of people to take it too far--far out of proportion to whatever sin the target is guilty of.
 

TheSword

Legend
We can't imprison or fine anybody, or deprive them of life or liberty. A court of law is not required to determine social consequences. The very idea that a court of law should be needed before one decides how to legally and non-violently react to somebody's behaviour is waaaaaaay beyond anything I think anybody would reasonably suggest. So let's not throw around legal terms like 'due process' and the like unless you want a judge to intervene every time you disagree with somebody. We're not there yet in our society, fortunately.
You can’t imprison people so you don’t need due process? There is such a thing as natural justice.

Come on, you live in the UK. You know that an employer has to follow Employment law regulations, even though they can’t fine or imprisonment you.

Every employer in the Uk (and most of Europe) has to give you clear grounds for your misconduct and present you evidence. It has to give you opportunity to reply. It needs to be unbiased. It needs to make a decision after all the facts have been seen and not before. The punishment has to be proportional. Your well-being has to be taken care of throughout the process. It has to be confidential.

Now Satine isn’t in the UK and isn’t an employee. So doesn’t get these protections. But let’s not pretend the only time a person deserves fair treatment is if they’re about to go to prison!

As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?
 
Last edited:

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
As an aside, contracts and SLA’s are supposed to protect contractors. What went wrong here? Why haven’t the freelancers that have been abused got their contracts to fall back on in disputes over pay?
Have no idea, but I having been involved in legal disputes over business deals that have gone bad, it is expensive, it is time consuming, and it can be quite stressful. For the amount of money in question, even small claims court is likely not worth the hassle for many people. If I agree to work for someone on a small project and that person stiffs me or strings me along, I might not bother going to down the path of litigation, but I would certainly let colleagues and perhaps others in my network know. That's pretty much what seems to be going on. Though, there is litigation as well. Satine seems lacking in business acumen and that combined with an unchecked ego, led her to treat people poorly. She also seems to have enabled, at a minimum by looking the other way, some quite abusive individuals in her professional and social circle.

Calling her out on it publicly is just more effective. As litigious as the US is, etiquette and the social consequences for breaking rule of etiquette, is primarily what governs our behavior.
 

TheSword

Legend
Have no idea, but I having been involved in legal disputes over business deals that have gone bad, it is expensive, it is time consuming, and it can be quite stressful. For the amount of money in question, even small claims court is likely not worth the hassle for many people. If I agree to work for someone on a small project and that person stiffs me or strings me along, I might not bother going to down the path of litigation, but I would certainly let colleagues and perhaps others in my network know. That's pretty much what seems to be going on. Though, there is litigation as well. Satine seems lacking in business acumen and that combined with an unchecked ego, led her to treat people poorly. She also seems to have enabled, at a minimum by looking the other way, some quite abusive individuals in her professional and social circle.

Calling her out on it publicly is just more effective. As litigious as the US is, etiquette and the social consequences for breaking rule of etiquette, is primarily what governs our behavior.
Sure but the social stigma normally comes from breaking a contract - and therefore getting a reputation for duplicitousness.
 

vostygg

Explorer
Abuse victims have been suffering permanent impacts for time immemorial. Our legal/court systems are ineffective at curbing such abuse. What you see on social media is the predictable and understandable result of allowing the injustice to persist.

In waggling your finger at social media, you miss the root cause of the issue - the abuse. Address that, and the social media issue will be resolved. Meanwhile, telling victims and their friends and allies to shut up and sit down, without doing something material to protect them, is not a good look.
Compassion is always a good look. Calling for moderation and proportionality at a stoning is compassion; it's not the same as siding with abusers. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is the very definition of a false dichotomy.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top