North Texas RPG Convention Refuses To Listen To Harassment Concerns

Harassment in gaming is getting more and more attention as gamers are making the stand that they will not support sexual harassment, the harassment of the LGBTQ+ or people of color. In the latest controversy over dealing with harassment at conventions, the North Texas RPG Convention, a self-styled old school gaming convention, has decided to take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harassment in gaming is getting more and more attention as gamers are making the stand that they will not support sexual harassment, the harassment of the LGBTQ+ or people of color. In the latest controversy over dealing with harassment at conventions, the North Texas RPG Convention, a self-styled old school gaming convention, has decided to take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces.


After people emailed the convention organizers to voice concern that alleged harassers Frog God Games CEO Bill Webb and former TSR editor and designer Frank Mentzer were being kept on the rolls as special guests at the next North Texas RPG Convention. One of the organizers of the convention made the following public statement in response to these concerns: "So here is my stance on the subject: Everyone is allowed to come to the Con." He then went on to say "I don't care if a member of ISIS or the most wanted person in a [sic] America comes to the Con, as long as they are there to game, and everything is about gaming. I have asked people to leave the Con when I find them debating politics and/or religion at the gaming table. (so what do you think I'd do if I observed any sexual harassment ?) Thus anything not gaming related can get you removed from the Con."

Here are screen shots of post, for those who don't want to click through the above links.


More conventions, gaming and otherwise, are taking a stance to protect those who attend them by crafting policies against harassment. Gen Con's harassment policy, from the Gen Con website, is simple: "Gen Con: The Best Four Days in Gaming! is dedicated to providing a harassment-free Event experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or affiliation. We do not tolerate harassment of convention participants in any form. Convention participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled without refund at the discretion of show management." Other conventions have written policies making it an expellable offense to touch other convention goers without their permission.

Pelgrane Press, publisher of games like Trail of Cthulhu and Night's Black Agents has created a harassment policy for officially sanctioned events at conventions or stores. "We want conventions to be safe and inclusive spaces for all gamers. Unfortunately, we know of too many instances where our colleagues, customers and friends have been harassed or made to feel uncomfortable at gaming conventions. We believe strongly that having a policy in place which explicitly censures harassing behaviour, and provides a clear procedure for reporting any such incidents, creates a safer and more welcoming environment for people at the greatest risk of harassment." Their policy goes on to say "As such, Pelgrane Press will not exhibit at, or provide support for, conventions which don’t have a publicly posted and enforced anti-harassment policy." Other publishers are taking this path, in order to make sure that their fans are safe while playing their games at conventions or in stores as well.

There is more to safety at a convention than slips and falls. Making sure that convention attendees are not harassed physically, emotionally or sexually is just as much of a safety issue as any other physical concerns. Not only that, by not making a strong stand against potential harassment sends a message to women, the LGBTQ+ and people of color that their safety is not as important to the convention as that of other people. It makes it hard to state that all people are equally as welcome to a convention, when the convention refuses to make policies that will protect everyone at a convention.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Please take up your fingers off the keyboard or screen, read my statememt and your response.

”coded sexist :):):):):):):):)” I assume is an emotional response to the all too often used statement about women being overly emotional.

I, on the other hand, said victims of harassment and did not say the sex or the exact nature of the harassment. It could, and I intended it to, refer to bullying because you are gay or fact or autistic or otherwise different. I did not mean it in a narrow way or just sexual harassment of women.

So now you have taken issue with something I did not read.

My dbt training says to validate you and yiur concern. It is true that the wording I used it often targeted and used for victim blaming, but I did validate the emotion and did not use it that way.

It is true that you did not specifically mention sex or gender in your post. And while you did validate the emotion, you were specifically invalidating the judgment that comes from the emotion. Which is also often targeted and used for victim blaming. And is also wrong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm luckily not subject to US law, and I can say with confidence that a lawsuit as you described would be very shortlived in most European countries. But anyway, I'm derailing the thread, so no more on this.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
No thats all. The internet mob has spoken, Metzer and Webb have been sentenced guilty because someone on twitter said so and they are to be ostracised forever. And whoever does not follow this order is as guilty as them and deserves the same treatment.

That is basically what the OP and supporters demand.

[MENTION=525]DocMoriartty[/MENTION] I would encourage you to do your own research. I don't have the link, but at one point the person speaking out had it well documented on a blog (with screenshots, etc). I read it, and I found his behavior to be creepy and inappropriate. There was a point for me where it crossed from "icky, but whatever" to totally not ok. Bottom line is there are a lot of opinions on this, but you should probably form your own.

That being said, that is a separate topic from this thread, which is about the guy running the con in North Texas who said he will let anyone come to the con, even convicted felons and people accused of harassment, as long as they behave themselves at the con.
 


Just like it's nice to know that if I commit a crime and have a criminal record, there are some places in society that will still give me a chance? Should someone convicted of shop-lifting never be allowed in a store again? Seems pretty harsh.

People get banned from stores all the time if they were caught shoplifting from them. This is actually used a lot as punishment in exchange for not taking it to criminal court. So this example is not really a good one. A better one would be if you are busted for drunk driving, that you are never allowed to drive again, when in reality, after a certain amount of time has passed, you can get another license and resume driving.
 

Except we do know what the recipient felt about them: she was creeped the hell out by it, which is more or less what she said when she posted images of the exact conversation on Twitter. I've seen them too. They were creepy. And unsolicited. And they creeped her out. Which makes them harassment.

This is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the "things that are actually harassment but people don't want to consider them that". He might have intended it as "harmless flirting"; others might have interpreted it that way too. It doesn't change the fact that it was not.

People will use terms like "gray area", particularly if it's behavior they engage in or would like to think they might try to engage in at some point, but this isn't gray at all. Unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advances are harassment. Period. To my understanding, Mentzner has neither acknowledged his wrongdoing nor apologized for his misconduct, which is why he's on my do-not-support list (the tone-deaf conversation about sexual assault survivors was really just more fuel for the fire, really).

Dont know the conversation so cannot comment there, I have seen tone deaf and similar comments made whenever someone doesn't instantly support an accuser, I have also seen plenty of times when the victim really is blamed (ie well she shouldn't have dressed so slutty looking). So either case is entirely possible.

Only point I will make, he only began harassing her AFTER she told him to stop. If she never told him to get lost or that she was not interested then he might have been a crude pig but he was not harassing her. The instant she said no thanks then yes he was absolutely in the wrong and I have no problem with him being told to get lost by anyone and everyone. I do not know if or when the required "no thanks" happened, so I cannot say if he did anything wrong.
 

Curmudjinn

Explorer
I strongly appreciate the bulk of this comment, but that "survivors are too emotional and it clouds their judgment" line is coded sexist BS and has no place in this conversation or in this forum. I can almost understand where this rationale might be coming from, why you may have felt the need to say it, but sorry, it's utter nonsense. You seem like very reasonable person, so stick with me for a second. If people are angry or upset because of what they've experienced, then appreciate the fact that said emotions are coming from a very valid place, and thus their resulting judgments must also be entirely and completely valid, just as valid as any resulting from a cold, hard "just the facts ma'am" line of thinking.

I'd argue that a judgment based on personal experience is way more valid and important to the conversation than that of any impartial, outside observer.

Survivors of any specific conflict absolutely are hindered by that conflict in the future, emotionally. This is the reason police and emergency personal are often give leave during traumatic situations. Similar situations can also trigger an emotional response even if it doesn't escalate to the original.
It has nothing to do with the coded sexism crap. It's basic human psychology.

Ask a psychologist or a police officer before you tell others about human nature or psychology.
 

neobolts

Explorer
[3D][/3D]
I dont want to get in trouble with my rpg friends, but I have to ask...

If he understands and regrets, and the victim considers things settled...why cant he appear at the con?


I am not one of the posters that has taken the position that he cannot appear at the con. My position is that the con organizer needs to be more articulate and concise in his responses condemning harassment, and that he is not doing himself any favors by showing disdain towards those who are complaining.

Are we assuming future bad intentions and incidents from him?


My secondhand understanding is that he has a pattern of drunkenness at conventions, but not a pattern of harassment. The divide seems to be over whether you give harassers a second chance, with reasonable points of disagreement on both sides. Also, if you are the con organizer, is it worth taking a chance on someone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

People get banned from stores all the time if they were caught shoplifting from them. This is actually used a lot as punishment in exchange for not taking it to criminal court. So this example is not really a good one. A better one would be if you are busted for drunk driving, that you are never allowed to drive again, when in reality, after a certain amount of time has passed, you can get another license and resume driving.

He should have said "any store" which I think is what he was implying.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
It is true that you did not specifically mention sex or gender in your post. And while you did validate the emotion, you were specifically invalidating the judgment that comes from the emotion. Which is also often targeted and used for victim blaming. And is also wrong.

I actually read it differently. It seemed to me Myrdin was saying the judgment was valid, but they take counter-productive approaches. I could be wrong, but I think that just means that if someone is emotional, they don't always take the most effective approach to creating change. Sometimes the way someone feels can make them do things in a non-optimal way. That doesn't mean the person shouldn't feel that way, and it doesn't mean that things don't need to change. They do.

I do that myself when I'm emotional. I can say things I regret and make a bad situation worse. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong or my feelings are invalid, it just means I used the wrong approach to make it better. When I calm down and think about it, I'm usually more successful. That doesn't seem like coded sexist ***** to me.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top