Harassment At PaizoCon 2017

In our post-Harvey Weinstein world, more and more people in the various entertainment industries are coming forward with allegations of abuse and harassment, both sexual and psychological. The tabletop gaming industry isn't isolated from this wave of revelation as incidents surface, and will likely continue to surface about professionals, and fans, within the gaming communities.

View attachment 90166​

Stories of harassment within tabletop gaming, at conventions and stores, and even in local gaming groups are nothing new. That is probably the saddest fact of this whole thing: that despite stories being brought to light, not only does harassment continue to happen but the existence of it continues to be denied by some. This denial is one of the factors that allows abuse and harassment to continue within tabletop RPGs.

Allegations of improper behavior at the 2017 PaizoCon by Frog God Games CEO Bill Webb were brought to life by Pathfinder content creator Robert Brookes. Brookes was attending PaizoCon and has written for Paizo and Legendary Games, among others. In an incident involving alcohol, Webb allegedly sexually harassed another guest at the convention and when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer.

In a thread about harassment and abuse on gaming forum RPGNet, Frog God Games partner Matt Finch, creator of the Swords & Wizardry retroclone, confirmed that the incident with Webb occurred, and revealed some details about an internal investigation that the partners of Frog God Games conducted into the incident:

"I am Matt Finch, the partner of Frog God Games appointed by the partners to investigate a sexual harassment complaint filed against Mr. Webb at PaizoCon 2017. Mr. Webb was not consulted by the partners on this decision. Due to recent accusations made on Twitter by a third party, I will outline the aspects of the situation to the extent that they do not compromise the confidentiality of the person who filed the report, I will describe the nature of our internal investigation, and will also address the recently-raised tweets by Robert Brookes on his twitter feed. This report will not necessarily be updated; it stands for itself at the time of posting, based on the knowledge I currently have.

"First, it is correct that a complaint was filed with Paizo at PaizoCon against Bill. I was made aware of this by phone on the day it happened (I was not present at the convention). Frog God is aware of the identity of the person who made the complaint, because they spoke to three of our partners at the convention after the event. We have not been invited to share that person’s identity, and although we are not under legal obligation to protect that confidentiality we have elected to respect that person’s desire not to have the event brought into the spotlight.

"Gathering information in a situation like this is necessarily limited due to Paizo’s own confidentiality obligations. To assemble information, I spoke to the three partners who had talked with the person who filed the complaint, and obtained their accounts of what they were told. Secondhand accounts are not perfect, and I had to weigh that against the fact that an attorney making direct contact with someone who has filed such a report can be seen as a threat or intimidation, and weighing those two issues, I chose to rely on a comparison of the conversations between the individual and our partners, plus Paizo’s own resolution of the matter at the time, plus a necessarily-cautious review of Bill’s account. There has been contact between the person who filed the complaint and Frog God partners since the event, and I will provide a screenshot of one such communication with the name redacted. I believe the screenshot provides a great deal of clarification.

"Reducing the event to a level that will maintain confidentiality, my understanding based on my investigation was that Bill Webb took an action and engaged in speech that could be construed as a sexual advance or as gender-dismissive.

"In consequence of this finding, I and another senior partner of the company had a meeting with Mr. Webb about expectations, standards of behavior, and future protocol. We addressed that one’s lack of bad intentions does not excuse problematic behavior.

"Some people have asked that Mr. Webb acknowledge and apologize for the situation. Bill does deeply regret his actions, and understands that they were inappropriate and upsetting. I have told Mr. Webb not to contact the person directly, for the same reason that I have not done so myself: the potential for that contact to appear intimidating or threatening. However, at whatever time the person lets us know that a direct apology from Mr. Webb would be welcomed, that apology will be immediately forthcoming. Mr. Webb is also under instruction not to discuss this matter in public, in case peripheral details were to be inadvertently disclosed that might allow the identification of the person by another party. This is also the reason we chose to have me, as the investigating partner, write the public report, given that a report has become necessary in response to a recent description of the event on Twitter."

We reached out to Webb for comment upon this incident, and we were directed to the RPGNet post by Finch. This is the company's official statement on what happened at PaizoCon. Whether or not there will be further repercussions within Frog God Games due to this incident and Webb's actions remain to be seen.

Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens has released an official statement on the incident on the Paizo forums. When EN World reached out to Paizo for official comment, we were directed to this statement:

"My name is Lisa Stevens and I am the CEO and owner of Paizo Inc. Events of the past few weeks have compelled me to make this statement.

"My company will never condone any sexual harassment or assault against any of our employees, male or female. We will never condone any sexual harassment or assault against any of our customers on paizo.com or at sanctioned organized play activities. Whenever I hear any allegations of sexual harassment or assault related to Paizo’s activities, I always immediately drop whatever I'm doing and I make getting to the bottom of these issues my top priority. We have banned people from paizo.com. We have banned people from participating in our organized play activities. We have stopped doing business with individuals. And we will continue to do so.
"As a woman and a survivor of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of these attacks. I know what it is like to feel the shame, the terror, how it changes your life forever. And because of this, I will never stand for my company to condone this behavior.

"Paizo’s employees are encouraged to come forward with any allegations of sexual harassment or assault and let a manager know as soon as possible. If criminal activities have taken place, they are encouraged to report it to the police and take legal action against the perpetrator. We have asked our employees to not engage in explosive and angry dialogue on paizo.com. We want our website to be a place where our customers feel safe and among friends. If there is problem on paizo.com, then our community team will handle it and, where appropriate, ban the perpetrator.

"In closing, you have my word that I have zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assault, and the same is true of Paizo. Please be aware that we treat these issues with tremendous sensitivity, and only disclose the specifics and resolutions of any such incidents on a need-to-know basis, even within Paizo or with our legal counsel. We do not and will not discuss these matters publicly. Every instance that I am aware of has been thoroughly investigated, and appropriate actions have been taken or are in the process of being taken. You have my word on this."

Unrelated to the PaizoCon incident, Brookes also revealed an incident of harassment within the Pathfinder Society organized play program. When a volunteer staffer reported this incident, their supervisor informed them that an NDA they had signed to be part of the program would not allow her to discuss this incident. Paizo has not officially commented on this incident or commented on whether or not there is an investigation into it.

If tabletop role-playing games are truly going to be an inclusive, we have to be better about not just reporting incidents of abuse and harassment but being dedicated to creating spaces that are safe and free of harassment of our fellow gamers. We also need to shine a spotlight onto the incidents of harassment that occur, it is the responsibility of journalists, bloggers and gamers to do this and let people know that their actions will come to light and that they will be held responsible. It is also important to not just talk about those parts of the gaming communities that we don't agree with, but to also bring to light the improper actions of those companies and communities with whom we do agree, because unless every act of harassment is revealed there will be no change within our communities.

Remember that EN World is an inclusive community.

[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Gradine]

Deciding to boycott a harasser is generous and morally good, even bordering on heroic, depending on what you're going without. Not boycotting does not make someone in the wrong, though. An extreme unrelated example: If you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life, you are unequivocally a hero. If you don't decide to take a bullet for someone else, however, you have nothing to be ashamed of.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Desmond Tutu

Bill Webb (and, let's be honest, plenty of others like him) remaining a part of the industry without choosing to correct his behavior makes the industry a less safe place for women. I can't imagine how this could be a face in dispute. Therefore, choosing to do nothing (and in fact, continuing to financially support Webb and his role in this industry) is necessarily choosing a side.

I'll dial back a bit in that I can recognize that there are ways other than a boycott to apply pressure on Webb to change his behavior beyond. But continuing along as if nobody has any responsibility to change? That's choosing a side.

 

[Gradine]

Agreed with 1 & 2.

But I think you’re missing my point with 3, namely that if the punishment of the offender is too severe, not only do we indirectly risk punishing those who may be innocent (here, his family & employees, if any), we also may stress the offender to relapse- possibly at an escalated level- regardless of how sincere the repentance for the acts that rightfully incurred the punishment.

Excessive punishment of Webb may also factor negatively into the mental calculus of unknown offenders who may genuinely wish to change. Instead of repentance, there is continued inappropriate behavior.

Both of these last 2 concerns are for potential future victims.

Except the punishment is only there if he continues to choose not to repent. If he does, and he's welcomed back into the community, then that incentivizes other perpetrators into repenting as well, not the opposite. But the pressure has to be strong enough to force him and others like him to repent in order to be welcomed back into the community in the first place. If it's clear there are no consequences for his actions, or that the consequences are minimal at best, that is what is going to dis-incentivize change.

 

[Gradine]

I don't know the inner workings of Frog God Games, how many people work there, what their contribution to the functioning of the company is, etc... If it's literally just him, then yeah, boycott products of the offender. But lets say for example (since again, I don't know who, how many, or what kind of workers FGG may have) that Bill is pretty much "CEO" he meets with teams, talks about his ideas, but on the whole he largely guides the company. Boycotting FGG's work isn't going to cut into Bill in this case. It's going to cut into the writers, the staff, the editors and all of those people first before Bill feels the squeeze.

Beyond that, boycotting FGG for Bill's actions is like giving up chocolate or beer for Lent. You don't need chocolate. There are plenty of alternative sweets, there are plenty of alternative alcohols. You're not really "sacrificing" for the greater good.

People who boycott get the same response from me as people who don't: "okay."

You raise a pretty good point, though others have pointed to some degree of culpability from the company as a whole. People generally have a choice for who they choose to work for also (see: the guy who bailed on the Empyrea project whose name is escaping him), though I also recognize that that might be an extremely difficult choice some, or might not seem (or actually be) no choice at all. If there were some sign that the Bill's employees were pressuring to him change, that might even sway me. But then, drunk Bill comic, so *shrug*

And a boycott is not a sacrifice, and framing it that way gives the implication of accusations of "virtue signalling", which we've covered up-thread. A boycott is voting with your dollars; we're all well aware that there are alternative products to spend on. A boycott is simply a signal to the company that we're choosing another product not because of the quality of their products, but because of the quality of their owner.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except the punishment is only there if he continues to choose not to repent.

It might not have been you, but certain people in the thread stated/implied their vision of the boycott was permanent- an industry-wide blackballing. My pushback was expressly intended to cover ONLY the situation of blackballing & boycotting when he has gotten treatment and apologized. In no way was I advocating a slap on the wrist, nor cessation of a boycott should he remain unrepentant.

 

[Guang]

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Desmond Tutu

Bill Webb (and, let's be honest, plenty of others like him) remaining a part of the industry without choosing to correct his behavior makes the industry a less safe place for women. I can't imagine how this could be a face in dispute. Therefore, choosing to do nothing (and in fact, continuing to financially support Webb and his role in this industry) is necessarily choosing a side.

I'll dial back a bit in that I can recognize that there are ways other than a boycott to apply pressure on Webb to change his behavior beyond. But continuing along as if nobody has any responsibility to change? That's choosing a side.

If that is the case, and you have chosen your side, I hope you are being consistent about your stand. I see Kevin Spacey is in three movies this year, and two next year. Weinstein also is the executive producer for two movies this year, and two next year. You will of course be boycotting those as well, as well as their previous works, and encouraging us to join you? And what about ex-president Bush, and Trump for that matter? I met a large group of pacifists when I was in college that refused to pay income tax because of the support it gave to the military. Some went further and deducted the percentage of the national budget that went towards military spending from their tax form. Pretty sure some of them got in serious trouble for tax evasion, too. Perhaps we should all do something similar? Or are you only willing to make a stand (and insist it is the only moral stance for all of us) when it costs you nothing?

 

[Gradine]

It might not have been you, but certain people in the thread stated/implied their vision of the boycott was permanent- an industry-wide blackballing. My pushback was expressly intended to cover ONLY the situation of blackballing & boycotting when he has gotten treatment and apologized. In no way was I advocating a slap on the wrist, nor cessation of a boycott should he remain unrepentant.

I think then, that we are basically arguing the same thing back and forth at each other then. My apologies

 

[Gradine]

If that is the case, and you have chosen your side, I hope you are being consistent about your stand. I see Kevin Spacey is in three movies this year, and two next year. Weinstein also is the executive producer for two movies this year, and two next year. You will of course be boycotting those as well, as well as their previous works, and encouraging us to join you? And what about ex-president Bush, and Trump for that matter? I met a large group of pacifists when I was in college that refused to pay income tax because of the support it gave to the military. Some went further and deducted the percentage of the national budget that went towards military spending from their tax form. Pretty sure some of them got in serious trouble for tax evasion, too. Perhaps we should all do something similar? Or are you only willing to make a stand (and insist it is the only moral stance for all of us) when it costs you nothing?

We all have to choose our hills to stand and die on. For what it's worth, yes, I do try to remain consistent in my stance of which producers I will or will not support based on a history of sexual harassment and assault, and yes, that includes Weinstein and Spacey (and Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski, and Casey Affleck... ad nauseum). There's lots of things I avoid supporting for lots of different reasons, some you mentioned, some you don't, and there are issues you've mentioned that I don't feel rise to that same standard for me. I'm sure some of those college pacifists would declare me in the wrong for paying my taxes. But like I said earlier, I recognize there's a lot of different ways to effect change, and I do what I can, as a voter, as a politically engaged citizen, to push for what I believe in. Boycott is not the only legitimate strategy.

But then there's also the question of impact. Lots of people see Weinstein movies, and Woody Allen movies. I don't fool myself on the individual impact of my or other people's choices in regards to multi-million dollar pictures. But I certainly voiced my discontent, as a lot of other people did, and it ultimately got a Weinstein-backed film cancelled.

And I have to think... what does the actual customer base of FGG look like? And how many customers would they have to lose for it to make an impact on their bottom line? Enough to move their owner to take a hard look at their behavior at make a change? And what other pressure can we exert, through social media, through online forums, to push for change?

Honestly? I don't research every product I buy, because that would be exhausting if not impossible. I try to consume consistent with my beliefs, but I'll be the first to admit to not being perfect. But ignorance is only an excuse for as long as it exists. Once you're aware of where the line in the sand is, where you decide to stand (even if it means not moving at all) is a conscious choice, and one that reveals what you value, what matters to you.

I like to think that I'm consistent in both my ideology and in my strategy, but I also have to admit that I am only one, human person. I eat meat. I don't research every single product I buy. I've done practically nothing, personally, to help bring power to Puerto Rico, or clean water to Flint, or to save the polar bears. And I'm sure that makes me part of the problem. The honest truth is, there's too many fracking problems in this world for every single person to do their part to solve every single one of them. We all have to choose the hills we stand and die on.

So when I say "if you choose to do nothing, to keep buying from FGG, to decide that the mental and physical well-being of women in the industry is not your problem, that is you choosing a side, that is you being part of the problem", understand that it's true, that I mean that, but that it comes from me with more empathy and less judgment (but admittedly not none) than might have originally come across.

Edit: What I mean to say is; being part of a problem does not, necessarily, make you a bad person. I understand that's an uncommonly presented belief, but I do believe it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think then, that we are basically arguing the same thing back and forth at each other then. My apologies

‘S all good!

It’s entirely possible I was reading too much animosity into the posts I was responding to.

 

[Sunseeker]

You raise a pretty good point, though others have pointed to some degree of culpability from the company as a whole. People generally have a choice for who they choose to work for also (see: the guy who bailed on the Empyrea project whose name is escaping him), though I also recognize that that might be an extremely difficult choice some, or might not seem (or actually be) no choice at all. If there were some sign that the Bill's employees were pressuring to him change, that might even sway me. But then, drunk Bill comic, so *shrug*

Unless HR or other persons within the company are active in suppressing action against Webb for anything he may be doing to employees at the company proper, I'm not going to hold the company as a whole accountable for Webb. I do not believe we live in an economy with enough economic choice and mobility where people who hold extremely niche jobs (writing/developing content for TTRPGs) can just jump ship and expect to be employed again without substantial downtime. And I won't put it on Webb's employees to make public overtures that they're trying to straighten Bill out. It's not their responsibility and I won't make them responsible by association.

And a boycott is not a sacrifice, and framing it that way gives the implication of accusations of "virtue signalling", which we've covered up-thread. A boycott is voting with your dollars; we're all well aware that there are alternative products to spend on. A boycott is simply a signal to the company that we're choosing another product not because of the quality of their products, but because of the quality of their owner.

Which is why my response was targetted at Guang's post talking about how goodly someone is when they boycott guys like Webb.

 

[MackMcMacky]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if one is seeking to atone for something committed in public, something that is part of a publicly recognized pattern of problematic behavior in the industry, something that the public is calling you out/boycotting you for?

Then the steps you are taking to change your behavior also have to be public.

I'm sorry if that violates someone's idea of the privacy they're entitled to, but this isn't just about Bill changing his behavior. It's about making people feel safe around Bill, and ensuring to our satisfaction--"us," in this case, being the audience and community with which he interacts--that it won't happen again. That requires public contrition and public evidence of change.

Which public? The people who witnessed what happened at Paizocon or the internet? Why did you choose what you chose?

I am getting weary of individuals on the internet who demand answers for incidents they weren't involved in and for which the parties to the incident have resolved whatever happened. This need to feel "safe" some are bringing up rings rather hollow. If you are going to a con that is remotely successful, there are any number of individuals who have committed misdemeanors or felonies in your presence. Going to a large retail store will expose you to potential danger.