News Digest: Empyrea Canceled, New Stranger Things Game, Warhammer 40K Comics, and more!

epithet · Oct 20, 2017

I find it disheartening that people here are saying that Mentzer shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. Everyone should get the benefit of doubt as to their guilt. In this situation, I gave him that benefit, then looked at the evidence provided, and my doubt was negated. It certainly seems that Mentzer was obnoxious, insensitive, and even belligerent on more than one occasion.

Still, it was appropriate for me to initially doubt the accusation against him, because we all--every one of us--have been (and will be) in situations where we were misunderstood, or where someone became angry and confrontational because of a mistake, either our own or someone else's. These things happen, and if we deserve the benefit of the doubt for cutting you off in traffic or taking the last donut, then it becomes even more important to avoid premature conclusions when the accusations are of serious offenses. These accusations against Mentzer are the sort that can (and should) dramatically affect public perception of him, and so it is entirely appropriate that the evidence Ms. Price offered should be examined with an open mind, and both she and Mr. Mentzer given "the benefit of the doubt."

I get that these issues are sensitive ones, and that making legitimate accusations of harassment is a difficult thing that leaves the accuser vulnerable. Really, I do. These accusation must always be taken seriously, but because they are so serious in nature, it is critical that we, as a society, not jump to early conclusions.

Fortunately, in this instance, there is ample evidence from which to draw reasoned conclusions, and those initial doubts can be dismissed. In many cases, however--perhaps most--that is not the case, and that creates a difficult situation. It is tempting to embrace the principle of "always believe the accuser," but that's no more justified that a predisposition to dismiss the accusation. The only fair approach is to give both the accuser and the accused the benefit of the doubt, and to draw conclusions from the evidence available.

We humans tend to look for simple solutions, especially to upsetting circumstances. We are all too willing to make emotional judgments. That's why, for instance, a juvenile accused of a truly heinous crime is often tried as an adult; a 14 year old might be too young to have a permanent record for shoplifting, but we can't seem to apply the same logic when we think of that kid "getting away with murder," even before he or she is convicted of a crime. In this instance, some people have an emotional predisposition to dismiss accusations against an icon of their favorite pastime, while others have an emotional predisposition to condemn anyone accused of creepy and inappropriate behavior. The only fair approach, in my opinion, is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and to keep an open mind.

I am not suggesting that everyone has to be fair, by the way. I totally get the emotional reactions to this kind of uncomfortable issue, and it is appropriate for people to channel their relevant experiences and associated feelings into their personal opinions, even on matters of public interest. I just wish it weren't taken to the point of condemning the very notion of giving an accused person--any person, accused of any misconduct--the same "benefit of the doubt" that is given to the accuser.

Gradine · Oct 20, 2017

"Innocent Before Proven Guilty" and "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" are ideas that make a great pair of basis for a criminal justice system but they're pretty inadequate for interpersonal dealings and relationships, where we often don't have access to anything remotely resembling objective truth, and especially in situations of "he said, she said", because believing a person is actually a binary state. You either believe a person or you don't. You don't get to take some morally relativist stand where "maybe both of them are telling the truth" in situations where stories are contradictory. You have to choose a side, and refusing to choose a side is absolutely akin to choosing the side of the accused (or the perpetrator, depending on your point of view).

Of course, what's happened here is a little bit different, where the facts of the matter hardly seem to be in dispute, but rather their implications are. There are four things at issue; whether his flirting with Price was appropriate, what his positions on survivors "freezing up" says about him and his views, whether he crossed any additional boundaries by refusing to let the issue drop even after being asked to, and how appropriate his threats against Price were.

1) Yes, his flirting with Price over Facebook was absolutely inappropriate. You can set aside the age difference, or the fact that he's married, and narrow in on one very important factor which will come up later: his position within the industry. Mentzer is a giant of the industry, and has the ability to wield tremendous influence within it (well, maybe less so now than two years ago). While it's not quite as cut and dry (or as gross and insidious) as what Weinstein was doing, or what happens in more established professional relationships (such as a boss coming on to an employee), but I think there's a case to be made that there's a pretty clear power dynamic involved here that makes even "harmless flirting", if we were to call it that, clearly inappropriate. Fun fact: A married man telling a woman half his age, that he barely knows, unsolicited, that he wishes he were younger and unmarried so he could be with her? That is super fracking creepy regardless of the perceived/actual power dynamics in play. If that's the kind of thing you can classify as "harmless flirting" I'm fairly confident that you don't understand what flirting actually is, let alone know where it and is not appropriate to engage in.

2) I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that Mentzer's stated views on trauma survivors "freezing up" are ill-informed at best and retrograde and harmful at worst. This also seems to be the only piece without much clear evidence, but also that nobody really disputes. It's also probably the least relevant on its face unless one wants to delve deeper into them to try to glean anything specific about his overall character and views about women (even in the face of all the other clearly revealed evidence). Of course, our overall individual opinions on that almost assuredly says more about us than it says about him, so that's a minefield not entirely worth strolling down.

3) Here's where we start to talk about boundaries. One the one hand, if you're passionate about a thing you should probably shout that thing to whomever will listen to you. One the other hand, one private Facebook wall is a pretty personal private space, and I think it's important to respect the wishes of those who own that space. In particular given the subject matter (trauma) the participants (survivors) and Mentzer's stance (effectively victim blaming), Mentzer's refusal to listen to requests to stop was pretty disrespectful.

4) This is probably the worst part, and it keys back to why his behavior in (1) was so inappropriate in the first place; threatening to blacklist her from the industry for blocking him on Facebook. This is both (a) extremely childish and (b) the actual definition of retaliation in relation to sexual harassment. Whether he actually had that power is as irrelevant as it is doubtful; the fact that he somehow believed he had the power to accomplish it all makes it impossible to cast his behavior in (1) in any light differently than as sexual harassment, regardless of how "harmless" it may have appeared to some outside observers. If you think you have the power to influence someone's career you do not get to flirt with them in any way, that is the exact definition of sexual harassment. It is coercive behavior at best.

If were having a conversation about locking Mentzer up and throwing away the key, then I wouldn't have a bone to pick with the idea of giving him the benefit of the doubt. But at a basic, interpersonal level? There is absolutely no way to defend his actions as anything but problematic at best and atrocious at worst. At best he is a creepy, misogynistic old man.

With all due deference to the work he did to build the industry and the medium in its infancy, it will be a much, much better place without him.

crazy_cat · Oct 20, 2017

[MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]
Great post. Well said.

Alzrius · Oct 20, 2017

So I stumbled across this story - the one about Frank Mentzer and Jessica Price - this morning, and I've spent the last few hours finding all of the information that I could. From what I can tell, there are three issues in play, here:

1. Frank's flirting - In her initial Twitter feed about what happened, Jessica posts a screencap where Frank appears to be (trying to) flirt with her. From what I can tell, they'd had some sort of professional contact before (I'm guessing PaizoCon), but otherwise the messaging looks like it's totally out of the blue. While it might be awkward, I don't think that this is necessarily crossing any sort of moral line, and I'm skeptical that it's worse than a faux paus, in terms of breaches of social etiquette.

2. Frank's opinion about the woman on the bus - According to Jessica's initial Twitter feed, Frank then (at some later date) joined a discussion regarding a Seattle woman who had been groped on a bus. She says that Frank, when he heard that the woman in question froze up during the incident, asked why she didn't attack the man groping her. From there, according to her, Frank expressed the opinion that freezing up during that sort of situation is "not normal," that if people don't fight back in such situations "the problem was with them," and that they're "sick" and need professional help. There are no screenshots of this conversation, though apparently multiple people (second part of that post here) were involved in the discourse. Frank later summarized his stance on the issue.

This is much more damning than some flirting, as I don't believe that freezing up when unexpectedly thrust into a high-tension situation is in any way abnormal. That said, there are differences between what Frank seems to be saying in that last screenshot, and what Jessica and the unknown person in those other screenshots are saying - albeit subtle ones - and that's enough to give me some pause. Looking at Frank's summarization in a vacuum, he's suggesting that he was "bothered" that the woman in question felt too powerless to even call for help. That could be read as disapproval of her actions (which is wrongheaded at the very least) or as him finding it tragic that she was made to feel that way to begin with (which is a much more benign sentiment).

As for his idea that the woman in question should seek professional help...again, that seems (to me) to depend on context that isn't available. I'm of the opinion that counseling and mental health services should absolutely be made available to victims of sexual assault/violence, as they can be immeasurably helpful with dealing with trauma, so that it doesn't continue to adversely affect the victim's quality of life. If that was what he meant, then I completely agree; there should not be a stigma attached to seeking medical services after an attack. On the other hand, if he meant that her freezing up when in a crisis situation is something that requires mental health treatment (as Jessica and that other person are alleging), then I disagree strongly.

That Frank then goes on to talk about fighting back against an attacker could be read as the latter interpretation of his former remarks...but again, I'm not certain of that. That's because I don't believe that prescribing actions that should be taken when in a dangerous situation necessarily indicates that those who don't undertake such actions when in such a situation are therefore to blame for what happened to them. Telling someone not to walk down a dark alley at night does NOT mean that you're preemptively blaming them if they do walk down a dark alley at night and get attacked. That, however, isn't what Jessica and that other poster allege Frank expressed in that Facebook conversation. As such, without seeing what Frank specifically said with regards to the Seattle woman on the bus, I'm not able to reach a firm conclusion.

3. Frank's making a threat - Jessica, in her initial Twitter feed, says that Frank talked about how he was "going to make sure [she] never worked in the [tabletop game] industry again." However, her screenshot here is of herself, saying that Frank had made "thinly-veiled professional threats." The unnamed poster who claimed knowledge of the conversation(s) said that Frank made a statement about "you shouldn't burn your bridges." Frank himself characterizes it as "if you" (presumably Jessica) "slam and lock a door, be sure you're never going to need it again."

Personally, I find this one even harder to parse than the issue regarding the woman on the bus. That's because statements like "you shouldn't burn your bridges" could be taken as either implied threats (i.e. a Mafia-like, "you sure you wanna do that?"), or at harmless statements of (somewhat paternalistic) advice (since Frank lived through the upheavals that TSR and other parts of the industry went through, where a lot of bad blood was generated when bridges were burned). Again, we need context that we don't have. I have to say though, I'm rather troubled by how Jessica characterized Frank as saying he'd make sure she'd never work in the industry again, only to screencap herself saying that he was making veiled threats. Those are not the same thing, and altering her description like that makes me disinclined to believe her take on the situation.

In Addition

While reading Jessica's take on the situation, I came across a follow-up Twitter feed from her where she talks about why she's posting this now. However, during the course of that she says the following:

View attachment 90031

This is the part that I found harder to believe. In my experience, Paizo has always been at the forefront of progressivism in the gaming community. The idea that they warned her about there being only so much of that they'd tolerate is very difficult to reconcile with that. I just can't see James Jacobs, Erik Mona, Lisa Stevens, Crystal Frasier et al taking that attitude. The only way that makes sense to me would be if Jessica was bringing issues like this up to such a point that they were becoming disruptive. But that would be indicative of her taking an extremely strident attitude towards these issues, to the point where it would make it difficult to work with her otherwise. But things like this don't help her avoid that characterization:

View attachment 90033

On the other hand, Frank Mentzer has recently had bouts of terrible judgment as well, which seems to be a large part of the reason why Empyrea was cancelled.

Overall, it's hard to know whose characterization(s) to believe, and I'm finding the entire mess rather sordid. I suppose if I had to say whose "side" I'd come down on, it would be...

...my not going there.

Doctor Futurity · Oct 20, 2017

Polyhedral Columbia said:
The first flirtatious PM Frank sent to Jessica was not unethical. They are both adults.

As an adult Frank should have known better than to post such an...unpleasant post....disguised as an "innocent" flirtatious compliment. I'm a 46 year old middle-aged guy and I wouldn't ever say such things --or type such things-- to someone young enough to be my daughter or even grand daughter. That was damned creepy.

As an adult, he should have known better than to put her in the uncomfortable position of having to figure out why he appeared to have no comprehension of social boundaries.

Sunseeker · Oct 20, 2017

There seemed to be quite a few troubles with Frank and the Empyrea campaign from the get-go. The fact that many of the people working on the project with him resigned after these events leads me to believe that there is perhaps more going on on Frank's side than we're getting to see, and none of it positive. His initial "flirting" towards Jessica strike me as neckbeardish "nice guy" comments which never, ever result in anything good.

Whatever the case may be, it is ultimately unfortunate that Empyrea must suffer for this. Though I truly question if there was enough interest to begin with.

Flexor the Mighty! · Oct 20, 2017

The flirting with a younger woman, I know a lot of old goats like that so I don't care much about that, its not like he stalked her and sent her pics of his dick. The bus commentary is insensitive no doubt. But if its true that he is throwing around his "weight" around and threatening careers and such, though I doubt he has that much pull in the modern RPG industry, that is pathetic on his part. He got banned from Dragonsfoot for apparently threatening to destroy the site and owner if they didn't ban who he wanted from what I can tell by reading the threads. Kind of sad, just going on what I've read. in a PM posted by the recipient he is talking about making it so the DF guy he wants banned won't be able to go to Cons or order game stuff through mail and will be financially destroyed. I wonder if he's losing his marbles?

Doesn't lessen the impact of his version of the basic rules I cut my teeth on.

Shasarak · Oct 20, 2017

shidaku said:
Whatever the case may be, it is ultimately unfortunate that Empyrea must suffer for this. Though I truly question if there was enough interest to begin with.

It did manage to raise over $60k before the Kickstarter was pulled so where does that rank on the interest meter?

Sunseeker · Oct 21, 2017

Shasarak said:
It did manage to raise over $60k before the Kickstarter was pulled so where does that rank on the interest meter?

Low.

Shasarak · Oct 21, 2017

shidaku said:
Low.

Sure, but considering the target for the new Numenera Kickstarter was $80k, unless you blowing your whole budget on Darlene maps that is enough interest to get some kind of product produced.

News Digest: Empyrea Canceled, New Stranger Things Game, Warhammer 40K Comics, and more!

Darryl Mott

epithet

Explorer

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)

crazy_cat

Adventurer

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

Doctor Futurity

Hero

Sunseeker

Guest

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

Shasarak

Banned

Sunseeker

Guest

Shasarak

Banned

Similar Threads

Related Articles