Harassment in gaming

[tomBitonti]

As far as changes proposed in these threads go, some are probably extreme, some are probably dismissive, and many are probably in between. The only proposition that people seem to agree on is this:

1) Don't harass/assault others yourself.
2) Be more aware for harassment/assault going on around you
3) Don't tolerate harassment/assault when you see it
4) Cooperate with security and/or police when asked about harassment/assault that you witnessed

And that's all well and good, but does self-policing like that really work? I've met a lot of good people in this hobby, and I've met my share of awful ones too. I've seen several posters say they wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but I've seen next to nothing about cases where they actually saw it and did something about it (even if it was just calling the harasser out for being a jerk). With the way people are in general, I don't even know if most people would care if it happened right in front of them (unless it was happening to a spouse, sibling, child, or friend). For all I know, I could be groped (or be the subject of one of the other players taking a downblowse photo or video) while leaning over a battlemat at a con only to have the rest of the table do nothing, ask the guy for copies of the photo/video, or tell me it was my fault for wearing a loose or low-cut blouse. And with the way people are in general, I wouldn't put any of those reactions past them.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482661-Harassment-in-gaming/page45#ixzz46HGiObAq

I think suggestions were posted for folks running events which go beyond the above. Can anyone bring those forward?

I was involved in two events which I will not detail for various reasons. One involved a co-attendee to a con hitting on a second who was not interested. Alcohol was involved. A second I will simply not detail.

But, such is at best anecdotal, and subject to the lens of memory. And generally, privacy and fairness will get in the way.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Springheel]

But, so what?

What's going to happen here? The woman goes and makes a complaint that someone said "menstrual." She finds it offensive. The management goes to the person, says, "Hey, there's been a complaint, please watch what you say" because, let's face it, it's not like this is an ejectable offense is it?

And that's the end of it. No harm, no foul. At worst, the guy is a bit embarrased and possibly a bit baffled since he didn't actually say anything. But, again, so what?

You're moving towards a different point than the one I was making. My point was in response to Gradine's claim that if someone feels they were harassed, then they clearly WERE harassed. I think that's wrong for the reasons I stated. You're moving the discussion to, "even if a person didn't harass someone, what's the harm in treating them like they did?"

There are several answers to that question, but the most obvious one is that it's generally undesirable to treat an innocent person like they're guilty.

But your question could just as easily be asked this way:

"If someone reports that they were offended by something a person said, what's wrong with asking the reporter what caused the offense? No harm, no foul. At worst, the reporter is a little embarrassed about having to quote what was said. But again, so what?"

If the thing they're offended by isn't actually something against the convention's standards of behaviour, you've just avoided having to accuse an innocent person of doing something wrong. And if the report is something serious, you now know what level of sanction is appropriate. Hopefully, convention staff would treat a rape or death threat more seriously than someone complaining about a person making a joke about menstruation.

I've seen several posters say they wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but I've seen next to nothing about cases where they actually saw it and did something about it

It happens. One article that cites examples: https://postmortemstudios.wordpress...-the-nicest-white-terrorists-youll-ever-meet/

​

 

[Sadras]

I'm going to say something that probably won't earn me any friends, but I feel it needs saying.

Several posters have said they wouldn't tolerate harassment, or assault/battery, in their presence. Good, that's as it should be.

However, people can say (or type) anything. My experience with harassment in gaming involved no one at the table standing up for me, despite my extreme distress.

Your mentioning of extreme distress reminds me of an incident, some years back, where one player (A) critiqued the way another player (B) roleplayed his character. The latter character blew up at this, obviously suffering some distress and vowed not to play at the table again with that player. I, as DM, obviously tried to calm this situation down but was unsuccessful.

Thing is, despite the actions of A not being correct table etiquette, I knew the sensitivity levels of player B as he was a long time friend. Player B would define player's A's actions as harassment whereas the rest of the table enjoyed a good banter, teasing, challenge. Honestly our table was better off with player B leaving.

The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress. In my scenario above all participants were males. As DM I take on the role of peacemaker but at the same time I expect a certain level of thick-skinness from the players at our table. Side/snide/cheeky remarks are very much a given with us. It is tricky, one person's extreme distress could be another person's casual shrug.

Besides matching playstyles, I believe players at a gaming table need to have similar temperaments and personalities. I don't believe this is punted enough. Everyone talks about similar playstyles - especially between DM and players, but many forget there are other aspects which make people a good fit for a gaming table.

Apologies if I have derailed the topic somewhat.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your mentioning of extreme distress reminds me of an incident, some years back, where one player (A) critiqued the way another player (B) roleplayed his character. The latter character blew up at this, obviously suffering some distress and vowed not to play at the table again with that player. I, as DM, obviously tried to calm this situation down but was unsuccessful.

Thing is, despite the actions of A not being correct table etiquette, I knew the sensitivity levels of player B as he was a long time friend. Player B would define player's A's actions as harassment whereas the rest of the table enjoyed a good banter, teasing, challenge. Honestly our table was better off with player B leaving.

The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress. In my scenario above all participants were males. As DM I take on the role of peacemaker but at the same time I expect a certain level of thick-skinness from the players at our table. Side/snide/cheeky remarks are very much a given with us. It is tricky, one person's extreme distress could be another person's casual shrug.

Besides matching playstyles, I believe players at a gaming table need to have similar temperaments and personalities. I don't believe this is punted enough. Everyone talks about similar playstyles - especially between DM and players, but many forget there are other aspects which make people a good fit for a gaming table.

Apologies if I have derailed the topic somewhat.

I was in extreme distress because PC rape was suddenly thrust upon me (I would NOT have joined the group if I had forewarning that rape was allowed content in their games), and the DM not only expected but pushed me to actually RP the rape scene, describing in graphic detail what was happening to my character as I sat in stunned and horrified silence, and as the other players just watched the scene unfold before them. I can honestly say that it was the most terrifying, humiliating, and degrading experience in my entire life, and I wouldn't put good-natured ribbing or a critique of how I roleplay a character anywhere near that experience on a scale of discomfort or distress.

 

[Umbran]

The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress.

I think the dynamic you're discussing here does happen, but I want to point something out....

Again - we describe this as the female being "overly sensitive". She is the one that is not avereage or correct. Why not say that her sensitivities are fine, but the men are coarse, insensitive, thoughtless, negligent, or "naturally" blind to how they are being problematic?

Calling it "naturally so" actually makes it worse - now it is not just a personal foible of the one woman, but it is now "natural" for women to be "overly sensitive". How is that not a sexist stereotype?

I don't think this is a derailing at all, but an excellent example of how unfortunately insidious some of the issues are. It pervades even our wording choice, if we are not actively thinking about them. It is *assumed* in how we construct statements.

 

[Gradine]

My point was in response to Gradine's claim that if someone feels they were harassed, then they clearly WERE harassed. I think that's wrong for the reasons I stated.

Funny story, but this is actually true; at least as far as harassment in the workplace goes. Harassment, as a legal term (which I think, broadly, that is what we are referring to in this thread), has some pretty specific definitions. Again, at least as far as the workplace is concerned, if a person states they were being harassed, then legally they were being harassed. Can't speak for non-workplace settings.

Of course, that isn't at all what I said. What I said that if a person feels they were being "terrorized" then they were, in fact, being terrorized, which is true. Terror is a personal, emotional reaction to an external stimuli; terror in particular is an immediate, visceral reaction. Once does not choose to be terrorized. Either you believe a person when they tell you their emotional state or you are accusing them of some form of dishonesty. There is no middle ground there.

Now, whether such external stimuli was intentional or unintentional "terrorism" is probably worth discussing. Also worth discussing is what, if anything, we should be doing about it; either at a institutional level (be that con organizers; FLGS owners; forum mods; DMs; etc.) or at a personal, social level (ie; everyone involved in gaming attempting to change the culture that breeds/tolerates such behavior).

 

[Springheel]

Of course, that isn't at all what I said. What I said that if a person feels they were being "terrorized" then they were, in fact, being terrorized, which is true.

Unless you're just making a tautology, you seem to be implying that some form of terrorism actually happened. Do you want to address the specific example I referenced? The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel". Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?

 

[Gradine]

Unless you're just making a tautology, you seem to be implying that some form of terrorism actually happened. Do you want to address the specific example I referenced? The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel". Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?

You seem to be confusing "offense" with "terror". I was addressing another poster's skepticism regarding a "culture of terrorism"; you appear to have lumped me into the "Don't ever ask follow-up questions to complaints" crowd, which I don't personally agree with.

A misunderstanding based on mis-hearing someone else is something reasonable adults should be able to get cleared up with little issue. Offering unsolicited comments regarding a woman's physical appearance who you do not, personally, know, is "unintentional terrorism". You are probably not intending to make the woman uncomfortable; the likelihood is high that you actually are. Exactly how uncomfortable (or filled with actual terror) a woman on the receiving end of such a compliment depends entirely on their own past experiences (or stories they've been privy to). Some might take the compliment well. Others might take it horribly.

The reasonable and respectful table would:
A) Make it clear to all players at the table that their voices will be heard and their boundaries respected.
and
B) Actually hear their voices and respect their boundaries.

That these very simple acts of common courtesy have apparently been too much to ask for for decades is a big part of the problem. That this lack of respect has extended to larger public spaces (see: game stores and cons) has made entering those spaces a legitimately risky proposition for a certain type of gamer.

 

[MechaPilot]

The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel". Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?

Did hearing "minstrel" as "menstrual" cause the women to feel terror? While the word menstrual is inappropriate in certain situations (I know I'd never use it around most guys, or over a meal) hearing it certainly wouldn't cause me to feel terror. Depending on the context I misheard it in, I might even think it was funny, especially if a DM was describing a minstrel's lyrical performance and I heard something like "The menstrual's flow was elegant and smooth with a satirical bite that drew cheers from the tavern's patrons."

In all frankness, I've almost never heard of unintentionally causing terror in another person. Maybe if you were fleeing a burning building and someone saw you running and screaming right at them, then I could see it. As for unintentional offense, I've heard of that quite often (and I've even been guilty of it myself on more than one occasion).

 

[Springheel]

You seem to be confusing "offense" with "terror". I was addressing another poster's skepticism regarding a "culture of terrorism"; you appear to have lumped me into the "Don't ever ask follow-up questions to complaints" crowd, which I don't personally agree with.

It's possible we're crossing our wires then. Though I'm not sure what the difference is between "offense" and "terror" in this context. Doesn't your statement work equally well with either one?

" if a person feels they were being "offended" then they were, in fact, being offended, which is true. Offense is a personal, emotional reaction to an external stimuli... Either you believe a person when they tell you their emotional state or you are accusing them of some form of dishonesty. There is no middle ground there."

If your only point is that when someone describes a subjective experience, they are either actually experiencing that experience, or they are lying, then you'll get no disagreement from me.

My dispute is with people who think that someone else's subjective experience should, without question, result in other people being sanctioned.

Offering unsolicited comments regarding a woman's physical appearance who you do not, personally, know, is "unintentional terrorism".

I have a problem with the term "terrorism" in this context. Terrorism has a specific definition, which is not synonymous with "causing terror" (and even as you're using the term, it only applies if the comment actually caused the woman to feel "terror").

The reasonable and respectful table would:
A) Make it clear to all players at the table that their voices will be heard and their boundaries respected.
and
B) Actually hear their voices and respect their boundaries.

100% agree.

​