• 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.

Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game

Status
Not open for further replies.

Riley37

Villager
Hell, the namesake family in Pendragon... Arthur is the product of rape by deception (via Merlin's illusion); Mordred is even creepier - his sire was raped by deception, too, and his mother was his father's half-sister. Lancelot is boning his best friend's wife for half the timeline.
You have a strong point about what's already in the mix of existing TRPGs. That said, I see a difference between rape and infidelity. Arthur discovering that Lancelot and Guinevere have an affair is one thing. Arthur discovering that Lancelot has taken Guinevere against her consent, by threat or force, is another thing entirely!
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I'm fairly certain when Hussar says this DM was "fired" he means he was fired from the convention, not from ya know, his personal job at home.
Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Oh really. I only knew about it due ONE facebook post and this thread. Sorry Enworld, you not big enough for all con organizers to touch base with you. As to facebook post, I always suspect FB posts. Even if link to a news article. It takes two before I even think the post is truth.
And what happens when Con A bans Jasper Taylor Stupid for being a scummy piece of trash. Then Con B bans Jasper Todd Stupid because they did not do a full name check. Then Con B takes to social media an ruins Jasper Todd rep by stating they ban him for his actions at Con A.

edit to add
From the blog post. ...Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
....
And people ask why I use Social media not so seriously.
Not a lawyer.

My bet is no that there is zero liability incurred for refusing to allow someone to run a game or have a position of authority at your con for any reason not explicitly prohibited by law. But that likely varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

This issue in question and the banning from other cons in the UK being mentioned - did hit her, did hit FB, did hit Twitter, did hit reddit and made it to BBC news. Obviously someone could whrn a position of potential liability hits claim ignorance before giving this person a supervisory role and try and get by a possible negligence claim... that's a kill they could choose to fight on... but in my experience there has to be a huge huge upside to having this kind of thing get authority given after an event like this.

You can try and go on or work the other UK cons banning to tweets or whatever, but iirc the "investigator" mentioned that happened. **after** their investigation and tied it to their own relationship to some of those cons.

"Given that I am also RPG manager for Airecon, Dragonmeet, and Longcon, he will also be pulled from those conventions for the foreseeable future, a question many have been asking."

So, whatever.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Explorer
Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.
I can get that you may be upset at what you see as injustice in other situations you may have encountered, but this cases seems to have had more to it than just "net rage" and "social media mobs" run amok.

To me, it's a real disservice to those involved in the incident, investigated, tried to find resolutions etc to basically lump it in with what you may see as other cases of unjustified outrage and steps taken.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
To be more on point
Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.
So? After reading anything in this thread or those articles do you think any of that is happening in this situation?
 

Riley37

Villager
Maybe. But I have seen social media mobs demand work places fire employees for what employees did off work hours.
You say that as if this is a phenomenon which only happens as a result of social media.

Did you hear about that time some professionals in the Hollywood film industry got fired, because of public pressure related to their off-the-job political activity, long before the Internet existed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
To be more on point
Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.
What the truck does that have to do with anything at all?
 

jasper

Rotten DM
What the truck does that have to do with anything at all?
Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
******
What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
*****
Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
So 12 out of the 20+ people HAD the WRONG NAME. So we have up to 12 GMS who have been slandered. Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
To be more on point
Will a con a have a civil liability, if they take to various social media platforms and Announce Jasper was ban from helping the con due to what happen a Con A. IF they ban the wrong Jasper.
This has nothing to do with this case.
In most cases, a con would just refuse to sanction the participation and not go social about it. Nobody wants to bring up risks and negatives in their promotions.

This seems to be hunting for a way to tie some social media mob bad agenda to this case and topic.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
******
What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
*****
Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
So 12 out of the 20+ people HAD the WRONG NAME. So we have up to 12 GMS who have been slandered. Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.
No, we have 12 uses of the wrong name. There is nothing so far that sts they named other GMs. It could have been typos, incomplete names or anything.

This conclusion seemed driven by agenda not derived from what was said.
 

Riley37

Villager
In the transcript of the interview, Kevin Rolfe says he told the players that their characters woke up in the back of a van, naked, and handcuffed to each other. I infer, from Rolfe's account, that he then *immediately* had men with guns appear, expel the PCs from the van, and tell the PCs to run.

Among the many things Rolfe did wrong, here's one: in a convention game, a scene in which the PCs become unclothed, by *any* cause other than their volition and action. I would not go there, and cannot recommend going there, in a convention game. Consider all the times that a villain has captured the Justice League, removed Batman's utility belt, and left them in a deathtrap. In how many of those scenes has the villain stripped the League members naked, and handcuffed them together? (Other than erotic fan-fiction, which has purposes AFAIK incompatible with UK Expo.)

Here's another: pacing and player agency.

if he had given the players a few minutes of in-game time, and perhaps many minutes terms of table time, to role-play what the PCs did and said upon waking up, then the PCs (and they players) might have compared notes, they might have figured out what knocked them out, and they might have figured out why they were naked. They might have tried various methods to get free of the handcuffs. They might have tried to get out of the van, or they might have tried to drive away in the van, or some of them tried the former while others tried the latter. They might have tried to improvise some clothing from the upholstery of the van. And so on.

Even if the GM ruled that all such attempts failed, at least the players would have narrative control over the pacing of how their characters responded *to the circumstances in which they awoke*, and to *each other*, without the further complication of men with guns telling them to run away.

Bad DM. No biscuit.
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
******
What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
*****
Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
So 12 out of the 20+ people HAD the WRONG NAME. So we have up to 12 GMS who have been slandered. Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.
I read the blog. It's not freaky. And the con isn't responsible for the actions of others outside of their venue.

If I tell you that a friend of mine did something creepy, and then you go and post about it on the internet, that's not the con's responsibility. There's no civil liability issue here. The con isn't responsible for controlling these people or what they do outside of the con.

You can't on the one hand say the con shouldn't encourage punishment outside of their venue, and then on the other hand say that the con should be responsible for what people do outside of their venue.

Thirdly, the "freaky blog" points out these are "people" not folks in charge of the con. The con didn't rely on bad information, it HAD good information. It was other people who had bad information and ran with it.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
If the con, it’s agents or employees released incorrect info regarding something like this, they might be civilly liable. If it was other attendees or anyone not associated with the con in an official administrative or logistical (security) position, then they’re not, barring special circumstances.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.
Yes, if the con uses bad information, and then publicly announces an incorrect conclusion, yes they are at some risk of liability.

But, that's huge IF. That isn't what happened here. This is a hypothetical boogeyman of a scenario.

Upthread I mentioned, as does the blog post, *the con investigates* when there's a reported issue. They don't take word on the internet at face value - they go and talk to people who were present at the time.

So, really, stop worrying about the convention doing something wrong based on bad information. They double check things. They have policies and procedures specifically to prevent them from doing what you are worried about here.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
You are firing a dude for something which did not happen at his place of work, did not involve his work business. Sorry Mr. Hussar here is box of stuff, the bobby will walk you to personel to pick up your last paycheck. The Boss saw you moon the winning side at last night's Super bowl. There is a reason some places do not allow a morality clause in your employment contract/ hr polices.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about what actually happened. GM at a con went totally off the rails and got fired from being a GM at the con.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
 

macd21

Villager
Read the freaky blog. from the blog.
******
What we don’t need is people spreading wild rumour and supposition, consider that I’ve had more than twenty people contact me, both at the show and afterwards, saying that they’d splashed the name of the GM out there, so as to make sure that they could never do it again…
*****
Twelve of those people had the wrong name…
So 12 out of the 20+ people HAD the WRONG NAME. So we have up to 12 GMS who have been slandered. Again What happens when a Con uses BAD SOURCE information to Ban a GM. And announces the ban.
If that happens, that con might have something to answer for. But why are you going on about this? It’s completely irrelevant. No con has incorrectly banned a GM for something he didn’t do and slander his name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top