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

Dualazi

First Post
As I understand the term to be used in this sort of context, "listening" generally means making a concerted effort to put yourself in the speaker's place and understand what they are trying to communicate at more than a superficial level. And if you want to be given credit for listening, since we can't see inside your head, you have to demonstrate that understanding in your response. So when people say he didn't listen, I think they mean he failed in his response to demonstrate an understanding of the concerns of the people to whom he was responding. Moreover, in this case, beyond failing to demonstrate that he did understand, he also gave notable evidence that he did not understand.

This is a disgustingly manipulative trick that gets played out all too often these days, and essentially boils down to “do what I say or you didn’t listen”, when that is not even remotely close to being true. As I believe Mistwell remarked earlier, you can listen to someone’s grievances and still either disagree with their premise or the actions they wish taken, and still have listened. Plus, the organizer already qualified that harassment wouldn’t be tolerated, which essentially makes your complaint a hyperbolic response to him not saying it in the exact phrasing that you desire.

Third, he expressed empathy for a number of categories of offenders, but none for their victims, another circumstance that would generally make it more difficult to understand concerns about sexual harassment. Finally, he seems to lump sexual harassment in with various criminal offenses. This belies either ignorance or dismissal of the ways in which these things marked differ in our society currently. We have not made sexual harassment in general a crime.

I want to single out this section in particular for being pure, unadulterated, societal poison. As far as I’ve read up on the allegations against the men in question, they have admitted wrongdoing, the companies involved have taken action or are in the process of doing so, and even the victim simply wants it dropped and to move on. This beggars the question of when, and by whose order, do these men get to attend conventions or tabletop business? The fact that sexual harassment is not charged in some cases is not and never will be a carte blanche invitation for online mobs to run someone out of society until someone else raises their ire. Frankly I’m quite pleased that the con organizer hasn’t backed down, doubly so since this is by all rights a small con that most of these protesters weren’t going to attend anyway.


Lastly, I’d like to echo the complaints of many others that this is tabloid-tier clickbait designed to make a mountain out of a molehill, over an issue that has really been resolved on both fronts. I don’t know if the Morrus and crew need to have a submission period or something where they screen for this, but in the time I’ve browsed this site I’ve usually found the articles to be of a higher caliber than this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
Umm, as someone running a public convention, don't they have some responsibility in vetting those they specifically invite (as opposed to people who just show up - you can't vet them) as guests?

Not necessarily. The very act of vetting or declaring that you are vetting attendees can be construed as assuming liability. By vetting attendees, you are saying that everyone that attends has your approval. Denying that you are vetting the attendees of a public event, could be a way of avoiding legal responsibility. Moreover, even if he had the resources to 'vet' his attendees, the very act of vetting opens him up to legal liability if for some reason the people denied access feel they've been discriminated against.

It would appear to me that this is a tempest in a tea pot sort of thing with a "journalist" creating a click bait story for the purpose of stirring up yet more outrage. I mean, how would we know who is virtuous if we didn't see people displaying their outrage all the time?

Wildly indignant all the time about everything.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
When someone is paying for harassers and assaulters to attend their con, that shows where their sympathies lie.

Just a question, not specifically towards you, but your post made me think...


I agree with zero tolerance for harassment....how long before someone who did the wrong can learn from their mistake and then, as an example, attend conventions?

(I imagine it depends on the severity of the crime and the honesty of atonement, assuming guilt for discussion).
 



EthanSental

Legend
Supporter
Agreed. This is worse than shoddy reporting; it's actively misleading.

Bad form from Chris whose articles tend to be good reads here, dropped the ball on the title as many have stated but I'm sure going forward he will be in top form.
 

Venley

First Post
Just a question, not specifically towards you, but your post made me think...


I agree with zero tolerance for harassment....how long before someone who did the wrong can learn from their mistake and then, as an example, attend conventions?

(I imagine it depends on the severity of the crime and the honesty of atonement, assuming guilt for discussion).


I do not have an answer as yet, nor likely does anyone. So far we do not seem to have progressed to these (mostly) men actually expressing regret or atoning; nor does that seem likely while so many men seem to support them. Fortunately, I think the tide is slowly changing but it seems it will take a good long while yet.
 

Pauper

That guy, who does that thing.
I think there's an important distinction to be made here which makes the allegedly 'misleading' headline absolutely on-point.

People with concerns about harassment, and who look for policies related to harassment, are primarily concerned with making sure harassment doesn't occur -- that's the point in not inviting those who've been known to engage in harassing behavior, in having a 'zero-tolerance' policy, etc. The idea is that the con organizers make clear that such behavior isn't going to be tolerated in the belief that people who primarily go to cons to engage in such behavior won't find that con a place they feel comfortable or welcome, and thus the harassing behavior won't happen.

In this case, though, the organizer is satisfied with explaining that he knows what harassment is when he sees it and he can deal with it and everybody should just stay focused on the gaming. That's significantly worrisome to those who might be harassed, because the message it sends is not 'don't come here to harass', but 'if you do come here to harass, don't get caught'.

If the con organizer wants a small con run for a bunch of good-ol'-boy old-school RPG gamers, that's all well and good. But I don't see that headline as misleading -- 'I'm in charge and I won't tolerate harassment' isn't really listening to those with concerns, especially given that the con organizer has explicitly said that those asked to leave the con for harassment won't automatically be refused entry to subsequent cons.

It's not ENWorld's job to help the con organizer white-wash his convention policies or to convince those who might fear harassment (and I'm sure there are folks even in North Texas who might fear harassment) that they'd be just as safe at this convention as at GenCon, ChupacabraCon, or CONvergence, to name a few cons with explicit anti-harassment policies.

Sometimes, journalists need to call a spade a spade. Good on ya, ENWorld.

--
Pauper
 

Lord_Blacksteel

Adventurer
Oh good lord - this is definitely a misleading title:

"North Texas RPG Convention Refuses To Listen To Harassment Concerns"

He did listen. He posted a response - by definition requiring some form of "listening". Some, presumably including the author of the article don't like that response. This is a distinct thing from "listening" - "listening" does not imply nor does it require agreement.

Is the writer (and some of the posters too) actually implying that the convention runner is in favor of harassment? I mean he "has decided to take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces" according to the article. Is that where we are now?
 

neobolts

Explorer
For the whole "convention rules" and stuff, you know some people just don't like or even detest all of this formal babble, which I can understand. In theory, everyone should understand his simple policy of "only gaming" at his con. And I missed where he says he has no interest in politics. He's clearly referring to the convention, not his personal opinions on anything. He won't discuss politics at the convention and doesn't allow anyone else to do it either, and considering the anger such topics raise I can very well understand that.

I get not liking the public relations aspect (or "formal babble" :D) of running a small event. It's a distraction from the enjoyment of the event itself. But sometimes it is unavoidable. If you have customers, then at some point you'll be dealing with a customer complaint.

Regarding "politics"...He said...
"I don't vote, never have (except once in 1984 when in the USMC, and our captain passed a yellow card to everyone, advised everyone to mark Republican and pass them back to the front). I couldn't tell you who the VP of the country is, nor who any were in any past years, much less who was President when... I really don't care who runs the country, it's all been down hill since Washington (this is all my opinion of course, and start another hate post based on this if you like)"
...which indicates to me a disinterest in politics. My point in that bullet list was not to take a stand on those issues, but to point out that his responses lacked focus. I mean really, nothing in the quote has a damn thing to do with the complaint. He's painfully way off topic and seriously blowing a diplomacy check.

And he's unfortunately right, people like drama, including in this thread which is evident by the misleading title. And yeah, he should roll his eyes because it feels like so many people seem to just want to be in on being against harassment but as we see can't even bother to get their facts right. This really worries me as it may lead to less people taking complaints serious, because of a few weirdos barking up the wrong tree (or starting a urinating contest at it).

If someone writes you a factually incorrect letter about a proven but still unclear as to the exact facts harassment case and you check and find the target of the misbehavior has since asked to drop the matter... Seriously, what would you do, especially if you have already invested money in this particular guest? And this is probably the first time you hear about misbehavior from the guy and never had an issue with him at any of your previous events? Plus people who don't care or haven't heard about the issue are coming to play at his table?

Yeah, this is a heated topic. And yeah, public complaints are often misinformed and deserving of an eye roll (in private). But he increased the amount of drama with his responses, rather than taking the high road. The facts of the individual cases or accuracy of individual complaints aren't what he should wade into.

So the Texan gunslinger (not meant in a negative way) organizing this con is not the best communicator. I still think he made it clear he's stepping in if anything comes to his attention, and he sounds like such things would come to his attention. Especially now that he's had warning. And please don't say he's ignoring the warning, he's clearly not. He's just making it clear it is his con, his policy, and if you disagree just stay the random Texan curse word away from it.

We are generally in agreement here. Saying he is "not the best communicator" is putting it politely. Howvere, the ENWorld OP position that he decided to "take a stand against those in the tabletop RPG hobby who have been harassed at conventions and other spaces" seems unfair and harsh. He is clearly not pro-harassment. He is just bad at expressing himself and needlessly confrontational in a way that exacerbates the complaint rather than constructively address it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top