• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
The specter of sexual harassment has once again risen up in tabletop gaming circles. Conventions are supposed to be places where gamers and geeks can be themselves and embrace their loves. Conventions need clear and well formulated harassment policies, and they need to enforce them. In this instance the allegations from multiple women have taken place at gaming conventions and gathering in different locations around the country. In one case, the harassment was took place over the course of years and spilled over into electronic formats.


The alleged harasser in these cases was Sean Patrick Fannon, President of Evil Beagle Games, Brand Manager for Savage Rifts at Pinnacle Entertainment Group, as well as being a game designer and developer with a long history in the tabletop role-playing industry.

There is a long and untenable policy of harassment at conventions that stretches back to science fiction and fantasy fandom in the 1960s. Atlanta's Dragon*Con has been a lightning rod in the discussions about safety at geeky conventions after one of the convention's founders was arrested and pled guilty to three charges of molestation. We have also covered reports of harassment at conventions such as Paizo Con, and inappropriate or harassing behavior by notable industry figures. It is clear that clear harassment policies and firm enforcement of them is needed in spaces where members of our community gather, in order that attendees feel safe to go about their hobby. Some companies, such as Pelgrane Press, now refuse to attend conventions where a clear harassment policy is not available.

Several women have approached me to tell me about encounters with Fannon. Some of them asked not to be named, or to use their reports for background verification only. We also reached out to Sean Patrick Fannon for his comments, and he was willing to address the allegations.

The women that I spoke with had encounters with Fannon that went back to 2013 and 2014 but also happened as recently as the summer of 2017. Each of the locations were in different parts of the country, but all of them occurred when Fannon was a guest of the event.

The worse of the two incidents related to me happened at a convention in the Eastern part of the United States. In going back over texts and messages stretching back years the woman said that it "is frustrating [now] to read these things" because of the cajoling and almost bullying approach that Fannon would use in the messages. She said that Fannon approached her at the con suite of the convention, and after speaking with her for a bit and playing a game with a group in the suite he showed her explicit photos on his cellphone of him engaged in sex acts with a woman.

Fannon's ongoing harassment of this woman would occur both electronically and in person, when they would both be at the same event, and over the course of years he would continue to suggest that she should engage in sexual acts, either with him alone, or with another woman.

Fannon denies the nature of the event, saying "I will assert with confidence that at no time would such a sharing have occurred without my understanding explicit consent on the part of all parties. It may be that, somehow, a miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred; the chaos of a party or social gathering may have created a circumstance of all parties not understanding the same thing within such a discourse. Regardless, I would not have opened such a file and shared it without believing, sincerely, it was a welcome part of the discussion (and in pursuit of further, mutually-expressed intimate interest)."

The second woman, at a different gaming-related event in another part of the country, told of how Fannon, over the course of a day at the event, asked her on four different occasions for hugs, or physical contact with her. Each time she clearly said no to him. The first time she qualified her answer with a "I don't even know you," which prompted Fannon after he saw her for a second time to say "Well, you know me now." She said that because of the multiple attempts in a short period of time that Fannon's behavior felt predatory to her. Afterwards he also attempted to connect with her via Facebook.

Afterwards, this second woman contacted the group that organized the event to share what happened and they reached out to Fannon with their concerns towards his behavior. According to sources within the organization at the time, Fannon - as with the first example - described it to the organizers as a misunderstanding on the woman's part. When asked, he later clarified to us that the misunderstanding was on his own side, saying "Honestly, I should have gotten over myself right at the start, simply owned that I misunderstood, and apologized. In the end, that's what happened, and I walked away from that with a pretty profound sense of how to go forward with my thinking about the personal space of those I don't know or know only in passing."

Both women faced ongoing pressure from Fannon, with one woman the experiences going on for a number of years after the initial convention meeting. In both cases he attempted to continue contact via electronic means with varying degrees of success. A number of screen shots from electronic conversations with Fannon were shared with me by both women.

Diane Bulkeley was willing to come forward and speak on the record of her incidents with Fannon. Fannon made seemingly innocent, and yet inappropriate comments about her body and what he wanted to do with her. She is part of a charity organization that had Fannon as a guest. What happened to her was witnessed by another woman with whom I spoke about that weekend. As Bulkeley heard some things, and her witness others, their experiences are interwoven to describe what happened. Bulkeley described this first encounter at the hotel's elevators: "We were on the floor where our rooms were to go downstairs to the convention floor. I was wearing a tank top and shirt over it that showed my cleavage. He was staring at my chest and said how much he loved my shirt and that I should wear it more often as it makes him hot. For the record I can't help my cleavage is there." Bulkeley went on to describe her mental state towards this "Paying a lady a compliment is one thing, but when you make a direct comment about their chest we have a problem."

Later on in the same day, while unloading some boxes for the convention there was another incident with Fannon. Bulkeley described this: "Well, [the witness and her husband] had to move their stuff from a friends airplane hangar (we all use as storage for cars and stuff) to a storage until next to their house. Apparently Sean, while at the hanger, made grunt noises about my tank top (it was 80 outside) while Tammy was in the truck. I did not see it. But she told me about it. Then as we were unloading the truck at the new facility Sean kept looking down my shirt and saying I have a great view etc. Her husband said to him to knock it off. I rolled my eyes, gave him a glare and continued to work. I did go and put on my event day jacket (light weight jacket) to cover up a little."

The witness, who was in the truck with Fannon, said that he "kept leering down at Diane, glancing down her shirt and making suggestive sounds." The witness said that Fannon commented "'I'm liking the view from up here.'"

Bulkeley talked about how Fannon continued his behavior later on in a restaurant, having dinner with some of the guests of the event. Fannon made inappropriate comments about her body and embarrassed her in front of the other, making her feel uncomfortable throughout the dinner.

Bulkeley said that Fannon also at one point touched her hair without asking, and smelled it as well. "[Fannon] even would smell my long hair. He begged me to not cut it off at a charity function that was part of the weekend's event." She said that he also pressed his pelvis tightly against her body while hugging her. These incidents occurred at a convention during the summer of 2017.

Fannon denies these events. "The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety."

When asked for comment, and being informed that this story was being compiled Fannon commented "I do not recall any such circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." He went on to say "The only time I recall having ever been counseled or otherwise spoken to about my behavior in such matters is the Gamers Giving/Total Escape Games situation discussed above. The leader of the organization at that time spoke to me specifically, asked me to be aware that it had been an issue, and requested I be aware of it in the future. It was then formally dropped, and that was the end of it until this time."

There were further reports; however, we have respected the wishes of those women who asked to remain anonymous for fear of online harassment. In researching this article, I talked to multiple women and other witnesses.

About future actions against the alleged behaviors he also said "It is easy, after all, to directly attack and excise obviously predatory and harassing behavior. It is much more difficult to point out and correct behavior that falls within more subtle presentations, and it's more difficult to get folks to see their actions as harmful when they had no intention to cause harm, based on their assumptions of what is and isn't appropriate. It's good for us to look at the core assumptions that lead to those behaviors and continue to challenge them. That's how real and lasting change within society is achieved."

Fannon's weekly column will no longer be running on E.N. World.

Have you suffered harassment at the hands of someone, industry insider or otherwise, at a gaming convention? If you would like to tell your story, you can reach out to me via social media about any alleged incidents. We can speak confidentially, but I will have to know the identity of anyone that I speak with.

This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear.

More conventions are rolling out harassment policies for guests and attendees of their conventions. Not only does this help to protect attendees from bad behavior, but it can also help to protect conventions from bad actors within the various communities that gather at our conventions. As incidents of physical and sexual harassment are becoming more visible, it becomes more and more clear that something needs to be done.

additional editorial contributions by Morrus
 

Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeanneliza

Villager
If I haven't ticked someone off before, here's where I'm going to do it.

If you aren't an active part of the solution, then you are part of the problem (silence/ignoring in almost every case is assumed to be consent/approval/condoning the behaviors that are labelled as wrong).

You can't assume because you are in a group of 20 people that someone else will step up and step in. You can't assume that since you all saw the harassing behavior, that someone else is reporting it. Make it easier to report. For example: Snap a pic of the person, send it with time, location and what you saw to the people in charge.

It is not enough to be a non-harassing male, you need to be a non-harassing male who actively looks for ways to make spaces safer AND then acts upon that knowledge.

Many times in my life I've acted out of ignorance. Once my ignorance was pointed out to me, it was up to ME to make the changes in my behavior.

So tell me, are you guys willing to pay that price?
An excellent summation, as well as the comment on self-policing. This is exactly what we have been doing for centuries, self-policing, our clothes, our facial expressions, our words, our choices about where we go and when, who we go with. I don't think it is too much to ask those who say they want to include us to share the burden.
It is largely about awareness and empathy, I can tell from how a person sounds if they are uncomfortable or stressed, faces give away even more. If you truly want to be inclusive, but expect us to bear the entire burden for our own safety and comfort you have sent a mixed message. You are NOT being inclusive, you are being self-congratulating over paying lip service to inclusion.
It is simple as the difference of saying "We allow women in our games". Allowing us doesn't mean we are either welcome or wanted and we know it. Sad to many don't see that simple bit of wording as problematical.
 

Hussar

Legend
Just a point of clarification, the two lists are of Micro-aggressions, not red flags. Medicine doesn't recognize any of those lists as "Therapeutic red flags" and none of them are considered harassment in legal terms. I'm not protesting them being discussed, just pointing out that what is being discussed is politics.
Whoosh! That's the sound of a point sailing over someone's head. Good grief, you want to argue SEMANTICS?

[video=youtube_share;hou0lU8WMgo]https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo[/video]
 

Riley37

Villager
You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans.
If Skynet hosted cons for Terminator fans, the incidence of sexual harassment might be remarkably low.

Then again, there's a scene in "Terminator 3", in which the T-X in apparently internalizes male-gaze-driven body norms; it spots a billboard with a model wearing a bra, and shifts more of its mass into its bosom.

That said, I've served on staff team for events which established significantly higher standards of behavior than the USA societal baseline. We accomplished this largely by putting a code of conduct on the registration form. People who didn't want to commit, with their signature, to high standards, self-selected themselves out of our participant pool. Pick up artists (and wannabes) could tell, just from the reg form, that running game at our events would be an uphill effort, and they have easier fields to harvest, so they went elsewhere.

Enforcement was still an ongoing effort, because some men delude themselves about whether their behavior met the standards to which they had agreed. Enforcement was, however, not hampered by push-back from third parties, because the vast majority of participants had an active preference for a harassment-free event. If a regular brought a friend, and that friend overstepped, then the regular understood that their role was not to shield their friend from consequences, but to prevent their friend from doing further harm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Riley37

Villager
If I haven't ticked someone off before, here's where I'm going to do it.
You already ticked someone off. "He'll live."

You can't assume because you are in a group of 20 people that someone else will step up and step in. You can't assume that since you all saw the harassing behavior, that someone else is reporting it. Make it easier to report. For example: Snap a pic of the person, send it with time, location and what you saw to the people in charge.

It is not enough to be a non-harassing male, you need to be a non-harassing male who actively looks for ways to make spaces safer AND then acts upon that knowledge.
Kitty Genovese would agree with you; so would Walter Kovacs, also known as "Rorchach".

Our role includes noticing and reporting "missing stairs". If an apartment has a staircase, and one of the stairs is missing, and the landlord never gets around to fixing that stair, then long-term residents warn their guests that one of the stairs is missing, and advise anyone traversing that staircase to step over the missing stair. Similarly, some communities handle known recurrent predators by warning their friends to avoid being alone with that person. This tends to fail spectacularly when some newcomer doesn't get the memo; but in the meantime, it makes the community less welcoming to the predator's targets, even if he never actually gets one of them alone. It is inconvenient and frustrating to contact the landlord, time after time, about the broken stair. It is also the right thing to do.

My friendly local game store had a drop-in Monday night D&D group. I played, once. One of the regular players had the overt goal of his character (a Life cleric) impregnating as many NPCs as possible. He handled this in a way which even he described as "rapey". My paladin PC objected; my PC did not change the events in the story, but as player, I had chosen something other than "shrug and accept this as normal". Afterwards, I told the DM that I loved most of his game, but the cleric was a deal-breaker. This was less convenient than just deciding not to come back; it was worthwhile.

So that's something I've done, not at a con but with dynamics similar to a con, and I expect to do so again, as need arises, at cons and elsewhere.
 

Morrus

Administrator
Staff member
Three true statements, one after the other!

If you are running gaming cons, at which no man ever asks that question to a woman in a cosplay outfit: congratulations, you are running the kind of con Morrus wants to host.
To clarify, I’ve never hosted a con.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
Clearly, but self-policing and “see something, say something” have been discussed and advocated for years- at least, here on ENWorld. And yet, as this thread’s title implies, whatever progress as has been made is still...less than satisfactory.
But it is better. You can demand the moon and the stars all you like, and in some cases you should. But you should also keep in mind that while obtaining the moon and the stars is your goal, you should recognize progress where it happens.

The fact that more needs to be done isn't also to say that nothing has been done. We should always be trying to do better.

You can’t eliminate bad human behavior without eliminating humans. Trying to do so becomes increasingly expensive and impractical. There’s even an economic concept called the “optimum level of crime”- the point at which spending on crime prevention is so prohibitably expensive that it makes far more sense to spend the money in other ways.
This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion. But to an extent, we are trying to eliminate humans. Sounds cold but it's not false. We're trying to eliminate problem humans from situations where they would cause problems, until such times that they either cease being problem humans or they cease trying to enter these situations. That's really what laws and increasing social awareness are all about: removing bad humans.

So it’s not A question, but a series:

1) what more can we do?
2) will it be effective?
3) will it be cost effective
4) will we be actually willing to pay for it?
1: The same thing we've been doing. Codify what is unacceptable. Ensure there is both top-down (policing) and bottom-up (social awareness) enforcement. I mean really what we're doing hasn't changed since we started doing it. It's just become more focused and more wide-spread.
2: There will be ups and downs I'm sure, but judging from history that we have generally become more effective over time, then yes, it will.
3: Bad actors are always few. Mathematically speaking, there are more people who could join the hobby than the bad actors we will lose, yes, even including the few innocents potentially caught in the crossfire.
4: Via increased con costs and and increased requirement on con-goers to be more aware of their surroundings, actions and those of others?
-That depends. One of these costs is cash. Some people have a lot of that. The other of these costs is awareness, some people have a lot of that. Some people have very little of one and an abundance of the other. Some people have an abundance of both. At the end of the day, the latter is going to be a cost we all MUST pay if we want to keep our hobby moving forward. If we can raise the overall level of awareness, we can reduce the potential increase in cost. If we cannot, then we're going to have to pay more out-of-pocket for someone else to beat the awareness into us.

That's just how the cookie crumbles. Because the potential cost of doing neither is a reduction in market penetration (as vulnerable groups and those already aware move away from the hobby) which will result in a loss of profits and we all know how companies like Hasbro react when D&D starts losing money.
 

Riley37

Villager
It is largely about awareness and empathy, I can tell from how a person sounds if they are uncomfortable or stressed, faces give away even more.
Some people have a hard time telling red from green. Most of those people are men. People with red-green color blindness learn whether the light means GO or STOP by its location (top or bottom of the traffic signal) rather than its color. They are still responsible for stopping at red lights, if they drive a car on a public road. (Taking a bus or taxi is a valid alternative.) I do not shame people for having color-blindness; I also don't have much tolerance for avoidable traffic accidents.

Some people have a hard time reading faces and voices. People with autism and related disabilities get a pass (from me, at least) on whether they can read faces; but that is not a FREE PASS for misbehavior, and there are alternate strategies such as asking a friend to help with social cues. I won't shame anyone for autism, nor for being a rookie at advanced social dynamics, but I also don't have much tolerance for the con equivalent of avoidable traffic accidents.

For some of us, giving up on romantic pursuits, for the duration of the con, might be the moral equivalent of "I can't respond properly to traffic signals, so instead of driving, I'll get a ride, take a taxi, or take a bus."
 

Riley37

Villager
To clarify, I’ve never hosted a con.
So noted.

In the theoretical event that you're ever on staff for a con, would you want intrusive questions about bra size to be rare or even absent from the con?

Prosfilaes went out of his way to explain to me that such questions are inappropriate. If he's speaking from the experience of attending (or running) cons where such questions are the worst misbehavior that ever happens, then I'm interested in learning what methods have had that result!

If he's pursuing some other angle, though, then you might prefer to leave it to him and me. We shall see.
 

Jeanneliza

Villager
Some people have a hard time telling red from green. Most of those people are men. People with red-green color blindness learn whether the light means GO or STOP by its location (top or bottom of the traffic signal) rather than its color. They are still responsible for stopping at red lights, if they drive a car on a public road. (Taking a bus or taxi is a valid alternative.) I do not shame people for having color-blindness; I also don't have much tolerance for avoidable traffic accidents.

Some people have a hard time reading faces and voices. People with autism and related disabilities get a pass (from me, at least) on whether they can read faces; but that is not a FREE PASS for misbehavior, and there are alternate strategies such as asking a friend to help with social cues. I won't shame anyone for autism, nor for being a rookie at advanced social dynamics, but I also don't have much tolerance for the con equivalent of avoidable traffic accidents.

For some of us, giving up on romantic pursuits, for the duration of the con, might be the moral equivalent of "I can't respond properly to traffic signals, so instead of driving, I'll get a ride, take a taxi, or take a bus."
And persons with autism are also one of the vulnerable groups more likely to be subjected to harassment. Those two grandsons I mention? Yeah the 21 year old has autism, his 24 year old brother struggles with severe mental illness, and even then they have more sensitivity and awareness than so called normal people. People with disabilities are 3 times as likely to be abused as even women. My grandson is painfully aware of his own limitations, others have made fun of him and bullied him over them.
I also show them comments in threads like this, interesting, they have no trouble spotting the bad actors, it may help I reiterate "This is not the way to talk to or about people."
Neither one of the would ever be likely to attend a gaming con, though they have gone to one of the smaller Comic Cons, they share a passion for all things Marvel. But I can't even get them to play with my online groups "too peopley" or far to anxiety inducing.
It is because of these two young men in fact that I am aware of some of these fears men have on a level I won't address here at all, because that diverts from the much bigger problem across society, and it isn't related to gaming.
 

Advilaar

Villager
There are types of conventions where you have little, if any harassment. Not sure it would be a lot of people's cup of tea.

They make a distinction between the professionals and the amateurs.

They also have just basic blanket rules of conduct like the pic of the GenCon deal in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. No forms in triplicate but a simple 5 to 7 rule policy that they make simple to enforce and covers all the bases that you agree to by accepting a visitor badge or vendor/VIP/speaker badge.

The floor of these trade shows are business environments. No cosplay is allowed, as per business dress codes, unless you have a booth and are a purveyor of cosplay clothing or unless you are paid to do this. While you are there, you are either there to buy merchandise, try products, network for a job, or attend seminars to network with other amateurs and professionals. Product demonstrations are only allowed to be run if sanctioned by the company itself and the company pays for the space. No one is allowed to just set up a table and do anything unless they have such a booth and are affiliated with that company.

There are still SOME night events and parties. Maybe a dance or a costume contest. But, there is no alcohol allowed there. It ends early and they watch people like hawks. You are there for networking and stuff, after all.

The open room parties are not sponsored by the convention in any private hotel room. This is strongly disallowed/discouraged and earns you an eviction from the hotel if there is even so much a peep. If a company or individual, however, wants to have a party that THEY arrange, of course they can at their own expense at an outside facility or rent out a small banquet room where it is on the company or individual or hotel, not the convention organizers.

Of course, if you do agree to go to go to someone you do not know's private hotel room, what happens after is not on the convention if you do wish to hook up with someone consentually.

This would probably appeal to some and there is a place for such things. It would also be pretty lame to a lot of others.
 

Riley37

Villager
This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion.
I gather, from the cumulative points of many posts, that what you want at cons and what DannyAlcatraz wants at cons (and what I want and Morrus wants), is largely a shared goal: less harassment, and more inclusivity for more people, not just for cis het dudes.

In this particular passage, however, you are misrepresenting what DannyAlcatraz said. DA didn't extend from the objective, testable, verifiable observation which he made, into the "so therefore don't bother" conclusion which you attribute to him.

Others have made the leap from the observation to the conclusion. That's not his fault, so don't lump him with them. His point about optimum, immediately following, establishes clearly that he understands trade-offs, partial successes, and imperfect-but-worthwhile outcomes.

After that, I enjoyed your answers to his questions. I especially appreciate the point about cash and awareness as resources which each of us brings in different amounts.

I would add, if you'll accept it as a friendly amendment, the resource of "willingness to live with discomfort". For example, some of us felt and expressed discomfort at the invitation to review our past behaviors against a check-list. Of those who experienced discomfort, some threw a tantrum while others moderated their response.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
This is a silly argument, because it's implication is "if we can't have perfection, why bother at all?" which is an equally silly assertion.
I’m afraid you’ve misread that section, because that is not what it is about at all.

The optimum level of crime isn’t an assertion making the perfect the enemy of the good. Rather, it is an assertion that- even if perfection is attainable- its cost may be so high as to be detrimental to society as a whole.

To illustrate in a silly but clear way, let’s say it costs $N to catch 50% or the people who perpetrate the crime of “Glagtery”. To catch 50% of the remaining glagterers it costs $(NxN). To catch 50% of the glagterers not caught in the first two rounds of law enforcement expenditures, it costs $(NxNxNxN)x5.

But glagterers are still out there...

Some government analysts figure out they can eradicate glagtery as they know it, but it’s going to cost 80% of the country’s annual budget, in part because the solution requires all residents (citizens and noncitizens alike) to submit to 24/7 electronic monitoring by the world’s most powerful AI.

OTOH, they could spend somewhat less than that, feed 90% of their hungry, house 75% of their homeless, have a strong defense plan, and not bother with invading people’s life with BIG BRO.

At some point, the correct economic decision is to decide that there are greater ills in the world than eradicating glagtery. The people don’t have to change their opinion of glagtery, but they’ll accept a little of it occurring because they see more benefit in spending that money elsewhere. And nobody gets a chip in their neck.

Whatever point society decides they've spent enough money and compromised enough civil liberties to combat glagtery and shifts focuse elsewhere, that would be their “optimum level” of glagtery.
 

Rygar

Villager
Whoosh! That's the sound of a point sailing over someone's head. Good grief, you want to argue SEMANTICS?

[video=youtube_share;hou0lU8WMgo]https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo[/video]
You're right, that point did sail over someone's head. There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group. If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine. In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.

Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.

OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.

So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions? Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
I gather, from the cumulative points of many posts, that what you want at cons and what DannyAlcatraz wants at cons (and what I want and Morrus wants), is largely a shared goal: less harassment, and more inclusivity for more people, not just for cis het dudes.

In this particular passage, however, you are misrepresenting what DannyAlcatraz said. DA didn't extend from the objective, testable, verifiable observation which he made, into the "so therefore don't bother" conclusion which you attribute to him.

Others have made the leap from the observation to the conclusion. That's not his fault, so don't lump him with them. His point about optimum, immediately following, establishes clearly that he understands trade-offs, partial successes, and imperfect-but-worthwhile outcomes.
Maybe, but that's why I used the word implies. I'm fairly Hobbesian in my approach to humanity. Without strong social order I generally see humanity as crappy. But where I disagree is that bad behaviour is part and parcel with humanity. It is...without any form of social pressure to change. Meaning it doesn't have to be. We can eliminate bad behaviour without eliminating humans, it just requires a certain amount of social pressure to force change. It's probably true that some people can't or won't change. In which case, as cold as it may sound, the answer is elimination. Not in a creepy authoritarian death-camp sense, but in a "exclusion from society" sense. Maybe it starts with excluding the individuals from cons. Maybe that spreads to same-industry businesses. Which then moves on to similar positions in other industries. Eventually that person is "eliminated" in a social sense, so unable to participate in any venue of society without changing that they either MUST change, or they must leave the society totally.

After that, I enjoyed your answers to his questions. I especially appreciate the point about cash and awareness as resources which each of us brings in different amounts.

I would add, if you'll accept it as a friendly amendment, the resource of "willingness to live with discomfort". For example, some of us felt and expressed discomfort at the invitation to review our past behaviors against a check-list. Of those who experienced discomfort, some threw a tantrum while others moderated their response.
Raising social awareness can cause discomfort, this discomfort is usually temporary. Such as someone admitting they made rape jokes or talked to a woman's cleavage.

EX: I game with a girl who is rather well-endowed, today was quite warm, and she had a rather low-cut shirt on. Every time I got "distracted" I remembered this thread and inwardly smacked myself and forced myself to make eye contact. Sure, it was uncomfortable, but it was the right thing to do. It's better for me to feel uncomfortable because I'm doing something inappropriate, and change my behaviour, than is for me to let my behaviour pass and make her feel uncomfortable.

I don't like the idea of "willingness to live with discomfort" as a measure because it's rather unclear of what it's measuring and it has the potential to be gendered. I don't want women with a high tolerance for :):):):):):) men to be "willing to live with lots of discomfort", and I don't want men to look at it as "I'm willing to live with making someone else uncomfortable." Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate from others? Is it a measure of how much an individual is willing to tolerate themselves? Is it a measure of how willing I am to change my behaviour for the benefit of others? I don't have a good answer for that, and it starts delving into personal definitions of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", and that's why I think it's a poor measure.
 

Riley37

Villager
But glagterers are still out there...
LEGALIZE GLAGTERY!

The mission of GlagterCon isn't to obey the law as it exists; it's to work towards the day when any three consenting adults can engage in glagtery, without legal consequences, without fear, without stigma. So yeah, the con staff turn a blind eye to glagtery, and maintain plausible denial as necessary. We avoid involving the police because so far as we're concerned, the focus of the con should not be their business in the first place.

Since we can't rely on *legal* standards of appropriate and inappropriate, we instead maintain a culture of informed, previous, mutual consent, and we "clean house" as needed, with zero tolerance for repeat offenses. Harass any other participant at GlagterCon, and you won't be welcome next year. Don't let the door hit you where the Great Glagter split you. If your local glagter community hears about your behavior at the con, and no one wants to play with you any more, then that's because *choices have consequences*. Good luck practicing glagtery on your own.
 

DM Magic

Explorer
You're right, that point did sail over someone's head. There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group. If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine. In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.

Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.

OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.

So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions? Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?
Remember that scene in 30 Rock where Liz Lemon gives the most over-the-top eye roll? Yeah, I thought that was hilarious too.
 

Particle_Man

Villager
You're right, that point did sail over someone's head. There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group. If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine. In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.

Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.

OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.

So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions? Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?
Sure, it is the one where women come in with their money now that it is safe for them to be there.

Oh, and I think your percentages are off. For one thing, you don’t take into account that some people will change bad behaviour rather than leave.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Afrodyte

Villager
You're right, that point did sail over someone's head. There's an ocean of difference between stopping harassment, and fulfilling the politics of a subset of a political group. If you want conventions to be guided by politics, then sure, those lists are perfectly fine. In fact, those lists are quite frankly frighteningly short by the standards of the political groups that advocate them.

Conventions and game shops are going to all belly up this year, because eliminating everyone but certain subsets of left wing politics isn't going to leave enough people to continue, but we can do that.

OTOH, if we want to eliminate harassment, as defined by law, that's something achievable since the legal definitions are legal definitions because they're widely agreed upon.

So your call, are we going to eliminate harassment or microaggressions? Do you have a business plan for how conventions and RPG's survive after eliminating at least 50% of its consumers?
Can I have your legal name, address, social security number and a clear and recently taken photo of you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top