Harassment in gaming

[DOTTIE]

Who's saying a single harassment complaint would automatically result in someone being ejected from a convention? That's a bit disingenuous isn't it? The consequences for the vast majority of harassment complaints are exactly the same as a single noise complaint - the manager comes, tells the person to stop doing whatever is causing the complaint and, assuming no further complaints, that's the end of the story.

Someone telling dick jokes, playing out rape scenarios, leering, jeering, and various other forms of harassment are best handled in exactly the same way. Which is the point of this entire thread - that no one is stepping up and acting. Complaints are being ignored. Complaints are being treated like some sort of bizarre role play scenario where the managers should act like CSI investigators. Complaints are being treated as always suspect because they might be weaponised against some poor schmuck.

It's questionable whether any of those things are harassment even if they were recorded.

You can't say that someone else's choice of words, body language, or taste in humor, is a personal attack just because it could be or you find it offensive no matter what. Offense is not the same thing as harassment.

 

[DOTTIE]

No, it's not. As evidenced by all the people who have been harassed. Hell, even I have (online version) recieved threats to the point where police were informed, although I obviously don't consider myself part of a demographic for whom it's endemic. I've had to ban people from this very site for harassing behaviour on multiple occasions. Free of harassment, it is most certainly not.

I accept it's there, but I think it's still a much safer atmosphere than say a bar or a in terms of the Internet, something like twitter or facebook. Your website is far safer, or free of bad language, etc. Most people posting seem sympathetic to anyone being harassed.

 

[Springheel]

I'd argue that the conflation has been largely one sided - we should investigate every complaint and determine to criminal law levels whether or not it should be acted upon.

I've seen it on both sides, but I think in many cases it's unintentional. One person posts about groping, another posts something about rape threats, another posts about people feeling offended, and in a busy thread like this it quickly becomes confusing which reply is to which problem.

However, the basic presumption should be that when the woman makes that complaint, it will be acted upon.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Where we might find disagreement is over what the action should be. That's why I'm in favour of clear policies for behaviour. Otherwise, you potentially wind up dealing with opposing subjective feelings. One person "feels" behaviour X is acceptable and one "feels" it is not. Clear rules would certainly help in that case. In some cases, the law itself provides the policy--groping people is a pretty clear-cut case. When you get into the realm of what is "offensive", it is much murkier. Are groups allowed to make dick jokes at their own table or not? Are people allowed to wear revealing cosplay outfits or not? Are people allowed to wear t-shirts with political slogans or not? Without clear policies, the answers to these questions would be different depending on who you ask.

And another basic presumption should be that any behaviour like this, in our hobby, in public, would be publicly and quickly dealt with by the people around. That by remaining silent, by not wanting to get involved, by assuming it's someone else's problem, we are all contributing to the problem.

Well, again, that relates to what I said above. While it's obvious you shouldn't condone someone being groped or threatened, should you intervene if you pass a table and hear someone make a dick joke? Should you confront the two strangers whose heads swivel to watch a scantily-clad cosplayer walk by?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't like zero tolerance Becuse it always leads to crazy over enforcing or having to ignore things not to get there and then real issues call through the cracks.

Every report of harassment should be handled with care and quickly, maybe with a "hey appolgice and knock it off" and maybe with a 911 call but mostly with the hundred or so options in between.

 

[billd91]

There's also the Gregory Elliott case, which was specifically about using anti-harassment laws as a weapon against someone. He was recently found innocent, but not until after losing his job and spending 3 years banned from using a phone or the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.

 

[Rottle]

Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.

In this case though it really does. The judge and officers found no evidence of threats of harm to any women in question.

Look you cannot simply say we each get to define harassment for ourselves in a legal situation. I think we have to accept you can "feel harassed" and not actually be legally harassed. Either way a judge or jury makes that call and when they do I don't feel you can claim a person isn't innocent of the crime of harassment when the court says he is not guilty.

I am all for anti harassment laws and their enforcement. It is regrettable and unfortunate that some innocents will be accused have damage done to their lives. Harassment in many cases is not like say robbery, it's more difficult to prove or disprove I suppose but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I do think the state or the accuser has to pay in some cases for the damage done to a persons life when they are found not guilty. If the state was overzealous and took a case far too weak to court, or if the accuser lied or contrived to damage someone with their false accusation. But sometimes it will just be harassment but not legally harassment.

Look at the damage done to the duke lacrosse team when they were falsely accused, it's regrettable that it might and likely will happen to someone but that doesn't mean for society it isn't the right thing to make laws to protect people from harassment. We just have to as a society let the courts do their jobs and not assume guilt just because accusations are made. And yes the courts too will get things wrong, it unfortunate.

 

[Umbran]

Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.

Bill, in the US, "innocent until proven guilty," is still the way it goes. If the case wasn't enough to prove him guilty, that's how we have to take it. We were not in the courtroom

 

[Abstruse]

In this case though it really does. The judge and officers found no evidence of threats of harm to any women in question.

I love it when women claim to be harassed, dozens if not hundreds and, if you take all the responses to the original Tumblr post, possibly thousands of women coming forward...

...yet people still feel the need to point out the one or two cases of "false charges" as if it makes the harassment problem go away.

I just ate lunch. Why are all these people complaining about world hunger?

 

[Rottle]

I love it when women claim to be harassed, dozens if not hundreds and, if you take all the responses to the original Tumblr post, possibly thousands of women coming forward...

...yet people still feel the need to point out the one or two cases of "false charges" as if it makes the harassment problem go away.

I just ate lunch. Why are all these people complaining about world hunger?

Why don't you think we need anti harassment laws? Or do you believe once accused by default guilty even when the court finds them not guilty?

 

[Abstruse]

Why don't you think we need anti harassment laws? Or do you believe once accused by default guilty even when the court finds them not guilty?

Wow, way to turn that one around. Considering I was one of the early voices for boycotting any convention that didn't have a harassment policy in place, I find this amusing.

My point is that, the moment women start talking about their personal experiences with harassment, men pop up immediately to point out the few cases of false accusations as if the dozen annual cases of false accusations wipes away the hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases of real harassment. Funnily enough, it's almost always preceded by statements like "I don't condone harassment, but--" which sounds to me a lot like "I'm not racist, but--"