Harassment in gaming

[Hussar]

Just one, earlier in this thread. I think it was @Sadras who mentioned male-on-male rape happening to one of his characters because the DM thought it was funny.

Edit: I will say that I don't recall if @Sadras said the DM just said that it happened to his character or if the DM tried to make him RP it (as happened in my case).

Edit#2: It was actually [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION], you can find it here.

Heh. i think my point still stands.

 

[MechaPilot]

Heh. i think my point still stands.

I wasn't attempting to rebut your point. Rather, I was simply answering your question. I have no reason to doubt [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION] that it happened, and I have no reason to doubt that it does happen to other male players. However, that doesn't mean that I think it happens to male players with anything anywhere close to the frequency with which it happens with female players. And, it doesn't mean that I think the male players it happens to are pushed to roleplay the PC rape the way my harasser did with me (though I won't rule out that it might happen to some of the male players who see their characters raped).

 

[Sadras]

Just one, earlier in this thread. I think it was @Sadras who mentioned male-on-male rape happening to one of his characters because the DM thought it was funny.

Edit: I will say that I don't recall if @Sadras said the DM just said that it happened to his character or if the DM tried to make him RP it (as happened in my case).

Edit#2: It was actually @Lord Twig, you can find it here.

NEVER at out our table. All the players and myself as DM actually have a respect for everyone's characters, and this respect has become more enforced since we started writing character proses. As far as I can recall in the last 10-15 years we have not even had an instance of NPC rape.

 

[MechaPilot]

NEVER at out our table. All the players and myself as DM actually have a respect for everyone's characters, and this respect has become more enforced since we started writing character proses. As far as I can recall in the last 10-15 years we have not even had an instance of NPC rape.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was recalling the wrong conversation chain when I mentioned you in my post. Also, I applaud your having respect for your players and their attachment to their characters.

 

[Springheel]

And, on a side note. We've heard numerous stories of female gamers having the DM have an NPC rape the PC during a prisoner situation. How many male gamers have ever had this same scenario occur? Has anyone reading this, if you're male, EVER had your PC raped? Whether the PC is male or female? Killed? Sure. Tortured? Maybe. Raped? I'm pretty sure that it almost never happens. How many stories have you heard where the male DM roleplays a rape with another male player?

I have never seen this happen. I'm in favour of adults doing whatever they enjoy in their games, but actually roleplaying rape or sex scenes would not be to my taste, and should never be done without the approval of everyone involved.

 

[tomBitonti]

I've said repeatedly in these threads that a lot of people say things like "I wouldn't tolerate that happening in front of me." And that's great. I think that's the page we should all be on. However, in contrast to people like myself and @Elf Witch posting our harassment experiences I can't really recall any accounts of incidents where someone stood up for someone else who was being harassed. @tomBitonti mentioned being involved in two incidents. From the context of his post, I assume he meant in a manner where he intervened on the part of the harassed (though there was no details given as to how he intervened or how well it was received by the people being harassed or by other bystanders, and I won't push him to give those details if he doesn't want to).

In the first case, the social group (folks, some friends, some acquaintances ) who had traveled together to the big cosplay convention in Atlanta (DragonCon, if I remember correctly). We were hanging out together in a public place, and a few of us were drinking. One of the guys was being rude to one of the ladies. Definitely offending the lady. We as a group intervened to keep the guy away from the lady, and the lady was very glad that we helped. In this case, I don't think she would have wanted us to call security, but if that's what she wanted, we would have obliged.

The other case was not gender based. I attempted to intervene, but found the person in authority to be un-supportive.

I've intervened in regards to folks were being harassed on a guild public void server, brought it to the leader's attention, and the behavior was moved against.

A problem that I have with the current discussion is distinguishing cases of harassment which are of a general sort, and which should be acted against, and a focus on harassment in gaming. I find that the main features of harassment in gaming which is deserving attention is the particular demographics (lots of guys, only a few women, some of whom are young and perhaps more vulnerable) means that some additional attention is warranted. But generally, I find a policy of actively working against harassment of any sort works in a gaming context just the same in other contexts. What I do (or would do; I haven't been to a Con or in a public game for some years) is wholly tuned to the particular features of the gaming environment, but largely follows from the general active policy.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it may be important to inject a bit on language here. Specifically about "responsibility" and "guilt". This will be relevant for any number of cases where one is part of, or heir to, a group that committed some wrongs. In colloquial use, we don't often differentiate between these terms, but discussion becomes *tons* easier if we do.

If a person is "responsible" for something, that actually means that they are expected to do something about it, to take some action.

If a person is "accountable" for something, then when we go looking for why it went wrong, we are going to look to them. If you are looking to punish, or assign guilt, you're actually looking for the person who is accountable for it - "the buck stops here" tells you where the accountable person is.

So, in a completely non-criminal example: If you have a software project, the engineers are responsible for writing code - it is their assigned task. If the overall project fails, however, it is the project owner who is held accountable for it.

Those of us who do not commit harassment are not accountable for it - we are not guilty. We may be responsible for providing part of the solution, simply because we are in a position to do so, in a way the victim is not.

Dude, those words are synonyms. They're interchangable in most places. Now, I'll stipulate that here are a bunch of management structures that break them into separate categories, but those are artificial. I guarantee you that if I'm responsible for doing something and I don't do it, I don't get to skate by saying 'yes, but I'm not accountable.'

This whole post was laced with whining about "it's not my fault", but this particular bit (focussed on the bit I have bolded) might throw some light on why that is all unfounded.

It's really not, as I don't accept that I have anything to be at fault for to begin with. I get that you want to make those the same thing, because that way encourages the narrative that I do have something to be guilty of and I'm just refusing to accept my culpability. I reject the entire framework.

Start by reading it in a slightly more widely stated way:

- The human race is a group with a terrorism problem (or, more accurately, several)

- the Kingdom Animalia is a group with (many) a terrorism problem

Neither of these claims, while merely wider versions of what is being objected to, has anything to do with racism, sexism or other "politically charged" prejudices.

Now move to some more specific cases:

- Every nation on Earth is a group with a terrorism problem

- The Islamic faith is a group with a terrorism problem

- White male gamers are a group with a terrorism problem

These groups all have a terrorism problem, in the specific sense that some of their number are trying to keep "outsiders" off of "their" turf by terrorising them into going away. That certainly does not mean that all members of the group are guilty of perpetrating terrorism - in fact it is in all cases a very small minority that do. But if the members of all such groups grew a smidgeon of humility and accepted some shared guilt for the culture, the environment and the lack of clear contrary influence that has resulted in such monsters within their ranks, the problems might actually start getting fixed instead of grinding on without end.

The main problem with this structure, aside from it also explicitly stating that group member bear group culpability, exactly as I said was intended, is the it now requires that all humans and animals also bear culpability. This means that you're at fault, and so it the persons terrorized, as their part of the group that you say just have some shared guilt. It's on of the core failures of the group guilt issues. I'm not into blaming victims.

Sadly, however, what invariably comes to the fore is the very opposite of humility; it is a prideful rejection of what is perceived as an attack on the group's social position. The implication is that a measure of harrassment, exploitation and even outright abuse (by a minority and with plausible deniability) is an acceptable price to pay for the continued social position of the group. And are the group members guilty of supporting that implied assumption? Yes, actually, they are as long as they fail to act against it. If you are a member of a group, and that group is doing wrong, you have a duty to act to stop that wrong by whatever means are available to you.

No. I do not have a duty. I should feel the need, and I do. I have taken action already, and will stand up again in the future. There is a problem, and it needs more light and people willing to stand up. I agree that there should be anti-harassment policies, but care should be taken to make them general enough to be broadly useful, and not written to fit the immediately clamor.

What I also reject is that, as a white male, I bear any responsibility, accountability, guilt, or fault for the actions of other individuals, be they also white and male or otherwise.

Actually, while persons commit individual acts, it is not uncommon for groups of people to commit wrongs. See "mobs", "invaders", "gangs" etc.

Recognition of group culpability is hard coded in law in many western legal systems. See "felony murder" and similar laws.

And again, when a group knowingly & intentionally allows miscreants within it to misbehave, they are morally, ethically, and- occasionally- legally culpable for allowing that behavior to occur. Gotta drain the swamp to get rid of the 'skeeters.

No, no they are not. They have no duty or responsibility for the bad actions of others. The easy flaw here is to do what Grandine did above -- move the definition of the group. Right now, it's white males that have a terrorism problem, but move the goalposts a bit to just white people having a terrorism problem, and now you're saying that women are culpable to. Group guilt is entirely malleable by the ease with which one defines the group. Take your Nawlins example. That's a real issue of people not reporting crime and allowing it to fester. But is it everyone in the neighborhoods? What if only some didn't report it and others did. Your blanket now says that the ones doing what their supposed to still have the same level of group guilt as the ones that do nothing or even that commit the crimes, only because they happened to be defined into the group. It's a bad argument.

Rather, it should be acknowledged that harassment and assault are individual crimes that can be stopped by others taking note and taking action. Instead of insisting people have guilt that they need to expunge, offer empowerment through clear reporting lines at your events and clear adjudication processes. A harassment policy should leave absolutely no doubt as to who to report an incident to, what's expected of a report (if anything), and who will have the action and what process they will follow. A few words that say 'harassment will not be tolerated' is pretty useless. Unfortunately, that's the extent to which most anti-harassment policies go, and some of the ones hailed here are about that bad. They're more about assuaging that guilt you insist everyone has and not actually effective at dealing with the problem.

And that's really my main point here -- if you're so focused on making sure that people accept and acknowledge their group guilt, then that is what will drive your efforts -- ways to reduce that guilt. And those efforts may work to make you feel better (the calls for people disagreeing with what some posters believe this thread should be about to be silenced is a great example) but don't address the problem anymore. You're adding in a middleman - guilt - that actively works to undermine your goals.

But, I know why it's done. It's nice to feel the rage at people that don't accept their flawed. It's great signalling to claim how much you accept your guilt, to make great shows of how you're acting against your own guilty group and advocating for the downtrodden. Thing is, the downtrodden don't give a rat's bum about your guilt -- they don't want to be harassed anymore. So, instead of guilt, make that your goal, and leave off insisting that every white male needs to have some moral and ethical culpability because there are real jerkwads out there that happen to be white and male.

Some of the behavior described in the original article- threats of assault, rape or killing- in order to modify the writer's behavior can actually sustain a conviction for making "terroristc threats", punishable by up to 20 years in prison, depending on jurisdiction and seriousness of the threat.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/terrorist-threats.htm

So, no, her writing isn't an issue at all. It isn't even really hyperbole.

Uh, no. Just no, man. If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat. If you harass someone, you're guilty of that. But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual. There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.

It's not a cheap shot at all.

On the contrary, it's dead on accurate.

And before you trot out the tired false comparison about men being victims too, make sure you can provide examples of male gamers, or men involved in the gaming industry, that receive rape threats and death threats on the same scale that women do, to the point that they fear for their personal safety and that of their families, and worry over their job security.

That's part of the real life problem being discussed here.

******

Morrus mentioned earlier that he's not sure about how to keep the discussion focused. I'd say one way to do it is for EN World to write it into the Code of Conduct that the website recognizes that harassment exists in gaming, it is largely targeted at women, and such is to the great detriment of the gaming community.

Because of this, discussions on harassment will be moderated tightly. The value of generating useful discussion on how to deal with the problem will be emphasized. Complaints about the sources of information are not allowed.

Or something to that effect.

I don't suppose the irony of your statements above is remotely apparent to you? If not, well, you demanded clear and unambiguous sources at a specific level of occurrence and impact, and then you advocated for a clear policy of being moderated if you complain about sources of information. I get that you meant 'sources of information I don't think should be questioned,' which does change the tone here from ironic to totalitarian, but still, funny stuff.

 

[tomBitonti]

Dude, those words are synonyms. They're interchangable in most places. Now, I'll stipulate that here are a bunch of management structures that break them into separate categories, but those are artificial. I guarantee you that if I'm responsible for doing something and I don't do it, I don't get to skate by saying 'yes, but I'm not accountable.'

In a military command structure, the words have different meanings, and an officer will very probably correct you immediately if you attempt to interchange them. This is my actual experience in discussion with an Army Lt. Colonel.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

In a military command structure, the words have different meanings, and an officer will very probably correct you immediately if you attempt to interchange them. This is my actual experience in discussion with an Army Lt. Colonel.

Thx!
TomB

I'm a veteran, myself. I hardly think that the way the military uses language is a good model for a general discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Uh, no. Just no, man. If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat. If you harass someone, you're guilty of that. But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual. There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.

I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this. I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups. Here are 2 exemplars:

Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf

Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)

Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought. So I stand by my assertion.