Harassment in gaming

[Umbran]

You're mistaking mockery for condescension. But the question is still valid.

Two points:

1) There's a solid argument that mockery implies a certain level of condescension.

2) Neither is really appropriate here. Both generally have the effect of turning the discussion into a battle of egos, rather than a mature engagement of reason, and internet ego battles are typically not constructive. So, please stop whichever you claim to be engaged in.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Understood.

 

[Springheel]

There are these things called "acceptable social norms". As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms. That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not.

As you're well aware, "acceptable social norms" are entirely subjective, depend heavily on context, and are not universally agreed-upon. Which is why, if someone accused you of doing something "unacceptable", more information would be required to determine whether what you were doing was, in fact, wrong.

Is breastfeeding in public socially acceptable? It's a fact that some people consider it "inappropriate" and will complain about it if it happens. What do you think should happen in that case? You work at a convention and someone comes up to you to tell you there is a person doing "inappropriate" things at a table. Do you take "immediate and swift action" and tell the mother to "watch what she does", without even knowing what the complaint is about? Do you find out what the "inappropriate behaviour" was and then take swift action to warn the woman breastfeeding that she'll be removed from the convention if there are more complaints? Or do you find out what the "inappropriate behaviour" was and then tell the complainer that breastfeeding in public is not against the rules and risk accusations of not taking her complaint seriously and "reducing the voice" of people who are offended? I don't see any response there that doesn't have the potential to offend one of the parties involved.

Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding? Yes. We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all cases. Perfect justice is eternally denied us.

​

That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it? No one here has said anything about perfect justice. The current line of discussion is whether a policy of "ask no questions" is a good one or whether cons should try to reduce subjectivity as much as possible by implementing clear harassment policies. Surprisingly, some people seem to be advocating the former over the latter, and I'm still trying to figure out why.

And yeah, you could go right ahead and do your worst.

I wouldn't not be able to stop you from abusing the system

So if you agree that the "ask no questions" response can easily be abused, why are you advocating for it?

 

[sunshadow21]

There are these things called "acceptable social norms".

As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms. That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not. Society, instead, assumes that your brain functions, and that you will use it (and, for those with actual issues with their mental function, we give leeway). But, generally, failing to use your grey matter is your own fault, and you suffer the consequences.

Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding? Yes. We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all cases. Perfect justice is eternally denied us.

But, this is also a bit of a boogeyman. It isn't like men by the hordes are being caught up by edge cases, persecuted with minutae. They're getting caught up by the fact that they cannot get it into their heads that they might actually be held accountable, like an *equal*.

As noted elsewhere - for those who are used to being top dogs, being treated like equals *feels* like oppression. The folks who are asking for more protection from harassment aren't oppressing anyone. They are asking for a basic level of respect that they historically have not had. If "I must show respect for people" is too much for someone, or it seems arbitrary, dangerous, or burdensome to them, maybe they shouldn't be at a con in the first place.

In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

[MechaPilot]

In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.

I didn't read the link you're talking about, but I'm going to go ahead and say that just as there are people who are overly-offensive to others (the "I'll say whatever I want and if you get offended that's your problem" crowd), so are there people who claim offense unreasonably.

For example, some people took offense when the Joker-Harley slap photo was leaked from the set of Suicide Squad. I saw some people claim that it was promoting violence against women. However, and bear in mind that I am saying this as an old-school feminist ("old-school" meaning following the philosophy of gender equality under the law, not promoting special treatment for one over the other), I took no offense at all, nor did any of the old-school feminists that I know. The Joker is a cool villain, but he's NOT a role model for anyone with any reasonable standards.

 

[Taneras]

In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Don't forget the students needing therapy because someone wrote "Trump 2016" on a university's sidewalk, the Yale students who felt physically threatened because some Yale professors didn't think the university should be telling 20 something year olds how to dress on Halloween, what happened at Missouri University, the students at Brown University needing a "safe space" where cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of puppies were provided to calm them down because there was a discussion happening on campus grounds about whether or not rape on campus was worse than society at large, Hampshire College a few years ago cancelling the band "Shokazoba" that their own student body invited because it was "too white", and the Cali teacher who threw out her high school student votes, at a predominantly Hispanic school mind you, because they had voted too many white people in. Heck, there was just a video at a Cali University where two black students accosted a white student because he was wearing deadlocks. I could go on...

I'm seeing a recent trend here and I think people are right in questioning how we should respond to complaints about offense and harassment because there are hypersensitive individuals that will make our community walk on egg shells because of their over-the-top delicate disposition. Especially when what spurred on the conversation was an article penned that target demographics, link to blogs about the white male terrorist problem, equipped with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and calls that anything outside of a "sit, listen, believe, and ask how you can help" is unacceptable. When I see that article, when I see calls to automatically and unquestioningly believe the person making the harassment claims, when I see the overall tone of this discussion I'm reminded of the same sorts of language and ideologies that caused the aforementioned hyper-sensitive behavior. I think the vast majority of our community is fine with trying to prevent groping, rape/assault threats, crude and graphic jokes made in public, DM's having people's characters raped, (as well as other forms of harassment), etc. But I think adding voices of caution so we don't end up going so far in that direction that we start to include such high standards of speech police that we can't even say the word "crazy" in front of people we don't know isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be characterized as the privileged cis-genderd heterosexual white males trying to hold onto their "top dog" status. I'm going to be mindful and respectful, as I have always been, but not to the point where I'm walking on egg shells wondering if I'm going to get reported because I'm wearing deadlocks while white. I'm speaking out because of what I've seen, outside of the tabletop community. I've personally seen those sorts of people who need coloring books to adjust to ideas they disagree with ruin some of my other interests/hobbies and I don't want that happening here - so that's why I'm speaking out.

 

[tomBitonti]

I worked security at my local live-action game convention this year. The con has, for years, been a couple hundred people. It only just reached over 350 attendees, and the con runners only just decided to have its own security staff.

But, there *were* security staff already? My point wasn't about increasing security, it was that events of a certain magnitude *are* having security, often built-in to the arrangement.

There is *nobody* at the door. If you are holding an event in a hotel, you can't put people at the door, because there will be hotel guests that aren't part of your event that also have to come and go. There are convention badges, and if you are caught playing a game without one, you'll be given a talking to and asked to go get your badge. But, if a non-attendee walked over to the vendors, and wanted to buy something, they'd be perfectly welcome to. I think a couple years ago, the vendors got some good sales off some girl's sports teams that were also staying at the hotel.

As Hussar said, 300 people is a large wedding, and probably doesn't call for increased security in most cases.

Again, I didn't posit *increased* security. As an additional note, hiring extra security for a wedding is a thing that is done. And apparently, some localities require a certain level of security if alcohol is being served (Pennsylvania is the locate I saw reference to.)

Heck, I also attend our local sci-fi convention, which is about 10 times the size of the gaming con above. Again, there's nobody at the door (for the same reason - we are using a large hotel's conference spaces, and other guests cannot be kept out of the building. There is convention security watching the doors of the Dealer's Room, the Art Show, and the Convention Suite, to see that folks who enter are convention attendees. The Art Show doesn't allow you to bring bags in, in case someone wants to try to pocket something.

That sounds like security already in place and following a security plan.

But, you do *not* have security wandering around giving an eyeball to each of the gaming tables all the time.

I didn't recommend this. Although, for example, at weddings, security is advised to blend in so as to not interrupt the festivity. Security will have a visible presence based on the value of that presence, say, to dissuade wrong-doing or to provide a feeling of security. I think that police show up at bars on occasion very specifically to be noticed, whereas at weddings a guard is supposed to blend in and will wear a tux (if appropriate) and keep their badge inside their jacket.

I expect the larger hotel for the sci-fi convention has a rent-a-cop on hand. And yes, the police know what's going on. But there's no major presence at the gathering.

Oh, and the woman I spoke about upthread was molested *by a member of convention security staff*. So, yay for trusting security staff to handle harassment cases!

Partly, that is a point to be addressed, in that conventions should make more of an effort to hire quality staff. (I saw this as a point re: wedding security, in which a ham-fisted guard can cause a lot of problems.) But corrupt security seems to be a bigger scope than we can address.

(The convention actually had a very clearly defined process for taking complaints (even against their own), where a security staffer (who was actually quite good and professional about it), walked through and asked questions and registered all the relevant information in forms, and it did get addressed after the convention.)

That sounds ideal. One of my takes from the current thread is that making this type of process the norm should be a goal of the community, and one which is addressable by the community.

For the 300 person convention, not really. The plan in the past was, "tell one of the senior convention staff, who would make a judgement call, and/or call the cops if it is bad". I do know that one year one party at the live action convention got a bit loud, other hotel attendees complained, and the cops came in to deal with it - it took them 20 minutes to show up, or something. Now, that was for a noise complaint, but I don't think they'd have been hustling for a complaint that a woman had gotten groped, either.

That seems almost adequate. I can appreciate resource limits for small gatherings. But, those who are running the gathering do have a responsibility here, and (I think) more of an effort seems called for.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

If "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" then why did you come up with a hypothetical that shows the opposite...?

I did no such thing.

After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." Around him. As in, a group.

A group of people at a gaming table are not "most people", because there are a whole hell of a lot of people in the world.

The phrase "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" is a statement describing all people in general terms.

The phrase also implies some people do not know what is and is not appropriate.

What are some examples of people who don't know what's appropriate?

The example of a man saying something sexual to a woman in costume, the example of a table group having a loud conversation about looks and sex next to minors and their parents, and the example of a table group discussing sex scenes on Netflix.

These are all examples of people, whether individually or in groups, that behaved inappropriately in a public place. (Those examples were drawn from accounts of bad experiences at conventions, by the way.)

 

[Taneras]

I did no such thing.

After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." Around him. As in, a group.

A group of people at a gaming table are not "most people", because there are a whole hell of a lot of people in the world.

The phrase "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" is a statement describing all people in general terms.

The phrase also implies some people do not know what is and is not appropriate.

What are some examples of people who don't know what's appropriate?

The example of a man saying something something sexual to a woman in costume, the example of a table group having a loud conversation about looks and sex next to minors and their parents, and the example of a table group discussing sex scenes on Netflix.

These are all examples of people, whether individually or in groups, that behaved inappropriately in a public place. (Those examples were drawn from accounts of bad experiences at conventions, by the way.)

So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.

Going off of that it seems much more likely that a table wouldn't be comprised of individuals who aren't able to determine what is and what is not appropriate since they'd be a minority in a world where most people could in fact determine appropriate/inappropriate and that the 99% (or whatever large percentage) would most likely be right with regards to how they viewed the language in question. The person making the complaint (the low percentage) would likely be wrong with their judgement on whether or not the language in question was appropriate because its more likely that because their outnumbered that they're in the minority of people who are not capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate speech.

No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.

 

[MechaPilot]

So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.

Going off of that it seems much more likely that a table wouldn't be comprised of individuals who aren't able to determine what is and what is not appropriate since they'd be a minority in a world where most people could in fact determine appropriate/inappropriate and that the 99% (or whatever large percentage) would most likely be right and the person making the complaint (the low percentage) actually be the person who isn't able to determine appropriate/inappropriate and has incorrectly labeled appropriate speech inappropriate.

No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.

I think you're forgetting that many gamers are socially awkward. Odds are that people who are predominantly socially awkward are more likely to have a larger population of people who would be inappropriate.