Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
This is going to be an awkward conversation but I figured it's just time. If you are sensitive to issues involving rape, harassment, and racism you might want to be careful reading this.
There are incidents revolving around a person named Erik Tenkar. Erik decided to defend Zak Smith after he was outed as a rapist and abuser at Totalcon. Here's just a small portion of the audio recording:
Single individuals making actions that will impact tens or hundreds of thousands of gamers. Your ability to see creations that zak s might come out with in a year or two. It might be the most awesome s$!& in the hobby or it might be s~+%. Don’t get me wrong but it has the potential and your not going to see it because everyone is shutting him down.”
You can kind of tell just by that statement alone what the issue is.
This is a person trying to make space for an abusive rapist in places where he just doesn't belong. Zak's harassment is responsible for multiple minorities and women quitting this industry. I know multiple victims of his. One of the victims used to attend Totalcon regularly. And we should make room for Zak?And it gets worse. Tenkar is a promoter of Alexander Macris. Alexander is best summed up as a guy who tried to profit off of white supremacy and harassment of minorities and other people. Initially, I became aware when he tried to promote Gamergate on the Escapist which led to the harassment of people I know. After the failure of the Escapist Macris went on to become CEO Milo Inc. What was Milo Inc.? Here's it's mission statement.
making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, and other professional victims a living hell.
I shouldn't have to explain what the issue is here.
Why am I doing this? Well it's a combination of slowly working up the nerve to talk about my harassment and to make sure people are aware of this. There at least you know half of the disaster involving Totalcon.
It's not clear to me:
are you reporting your own harassment at specific PFS events?
Or is this just a general "this guy is scum and I want to spread that information as widely as possible"?
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
It's not clear to me:
are you reporting your own harassment at specific PFS events?
Or is this just a general "this guy is scum and I want to spread that information as widely as possible"?
Well since you asked the first incident occurred at a convention that PFS participates in which is Totalcon. And the part that is kind of iffy was that people knew this was an issue because Erik is an employee of Frog God Games. So there were warning signs about this. Now mind you I'm not going to expect anyone to expect that but still.....
And in case anyone is wondering how I got that transcript. It was a podcast recorded at Totalcon. I'm still utterly flabbergasted by that.
I still don't understand what you would like to see happen.
Is there something you believe Organized Play staff should have done at that event?
Were they asked to do something and the request was ignored?
Is there something you would like to see them do at all future events?
Or are you asking Paizo staff to take action? And what action would you like to see?
|
Speaking as a player/customer/GM - not as a VO nor representing paizo in any capacity:
In general (not just on paizo forums),
When the issue is a crime, the local authorities are proper channel you should contact.
When the issue is the misbehaviour (but not strictly a crime) of a member of the community, the proper channel you should contact is the customer service/administrators/moderators/organizers directly.
The community/regular forum users can't really help you and "naming and shaming" isn't a solution to any issue - and on many forums/servers/communities, such conduct is frowned upon or outright prohibited.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
When the issue is the misbehaviour (but not strictly a crime) of a member of the community, the proper channel you should contact is the customer service/administrators/moderators/organizers directly.
What makes you think that this didn't occur already? Also what makes you think that this is a safe idea?
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the issue is the misbehaviour (but not strictly a crime) of a member of the community, the proper channel you should contact is the customer service/administrators/moderators/organizers directly.
What makes you think that this didn't occur already? Also what makes you think that this is a safe idea?
If you are pushing the issue forward through the proper channel, why make a post on the forum? What, specifically, do you hope to achieve or accomplish with this post? Also, what do you mean by the last part, "what makes you think this is a safe idea"?
I want to emphasize that I do not condone the sort of behavior you are describing: however, I'm not going to get into this specific case, I'm merely speaking on a generic level here:
You're making a post in a public, RPG focused forum about specific people - your post is, essentially, addressed to whoever reads these forums, but people aren't reading this forum for post like these: They are reading it to find out rules/ideas/enjoy an RPG, and that's the first problem: This isn't the right forum.
I'm probably a pretty average forum user: I have no idea what you are talking about: I do not know these people, I do not know this con, I have no idea what has happened to spark such a post, and I don't know who you are, and that's the second problem: your readers are ill informed about this issue.
In society, people are innocent until proven otherwise. From my perspective, you make accusations that I've no idea if they are true or not. Your post may or may not be convincing, but it doesn't really have anything to back it up, and that's the third problem - you are judging, or asking others to judge people in a situation where they simply do not know enough.
In theory, I could start to do some research to follow up on these to see what you're talking about, but that's not why I'm here on this board, and it's not my duty or job to do so. You are relying on people either investigating the issue on their own, or simply taking your word as you've written it, and that's the fourth problem - You are assuming, or asking, that people accept the responsibility to get to know this issue before they respond. They probably won't.
Even if I did research these events, and came to the judgement that whoever you are posting about are bad people - what can I do but to offer my sympathies? I have no idea who they are, I wouldn't even recognize them if I met them, and I probably won't given how I'm on the other side of the globe from you, and I can't prevent them from taking part in the PFS scene, and I can't punish them in accordance to their crimes - and that's the fifth problem. There's practically speaking nothing the readers of this board can do to help or aid you.
There's also a sixth common problem in these "name and shame" posts: Whoever you are talking about doesn't necessarily know that you are posting about them, and they have no way of responding to your post.
Now, I want to again emphasize that I want to offer you my sympathies, and I condemn the kind of actions are speaking of - RPG's should be safe places for everyone to take part in without fear of physical or mental harm or harassment. When that kind of actions happen, it is a duty for all of us to call it out in that moment, and show that the behaviour isn't accepted before, after, or at the table.
However, "name and shame" posts easily create a toxic environment without solving any of the issues because of the problems mentioned earlier, and I simply can't see anything good coming out from them. If these people are active in PFS scene, take it up to the VO's, escalate as necessary. If these people are arranging a con, take it up with the con organizers. If there are actual crimes involved or you are being threatened for taking it up with the Right People, take it up with the police. Primarily, these are the people who can, and who's duty it is, to help you.
When the issue is the misbehaviour (but not strictly a crime) of a member of the community, the proper channel you should contact is the customer service/administrators/moderators/organizers directly.
What makes you think that this didn't occur already? Also what makes you think that this is a safe idea?
Well because your post makes no mention of you (or anyone) doing so?
Also...what exactly does this have to do with PFS? Was Erik Tenkar part of the staff? Part of the players?
And I honestly don't know what you want to achieve with your original post. Get him banned from cons? From PFS?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why am I doing this? Well it's a combination of slowly working up the nerve to talk about my harassment and to make sure people are aware of this. There at least you know half of the disaster involving Totalcon.
Take your time and your pace. If I understand, it has taken awhile for you to find a place that you feel safe talking. I know that it can take time to work up to it.
I ask others to give you this time and place at your pace
|
I'm not sure about the latest as I wasn't at TotalCon this year, but I know there has been some backlash in the past against the convention not taking any action against harassers or their defenders.
Frank Mentzer was accused of harassment and TotalCon continued to invite him as a guest of honor.
Bill Webb from Frog God Games was banned from another convention for his harassment but was still welcomed to the next TotalCon after it happened.
Is this yet another story of the convention staff turning a blind eye to harassers and their defenders? It sounds like that's the case.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frank Mentzer was accused of harassment and TotalCon continued to invite him as a guest of honor.
Bill Webb from Frog God Games was banned from another convention for his harassment but was still welcomed to the next TotalCon after it happened.
Is this yet another story of the convention staff turning a blind eye to harassers and their defenders? It sounds like that's the case.
On a very practical level, if that is the case, the naming and shaming should focus on the convention organizers, not the harasser.
We all know what's going to happen in a public forum. Everyone wants to know all the lurid details before they "make a fully informed decision." It's going to devolve into a quagmire.
Criminal courts require high burdens of proof because the punishments it metes out are severe; civil courts require less proof because the punishments it metes out are less severe. The court of public opinion is/can be easily swayed but that's because the most severe punishment we can hand out is "well i guess im not going to totalcon."
If the proposal is to strip Totalcon of sponsorship or whatever, that should really be taken up with the decision makers. If that hasn't worked, and the appeal is now that people should boycott Totalcon, that's fine, so long as it's understood that the general public is really limited in what it can do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a very practical level, if that is the case, the naming and shaming should focus on the convention organizers, not the harasser.Frank Mentzer was accused of harassment and TotalCon continued to invite him as a guest of honor.
Bill Webb from Frog God Games was banned from another convention for his harassment but was still welcomed to the next TotalCon after it happened.
Is this yet another story of the convention staff turning a blind eye to harassers and their defenders? It sounds like that's the case.
Not every con organizer has the ability nor the desire to stay up to date with nerd drama. As a person that put on several large tier one cons, if others had not raised high the black flag, I would have had no idea about the craptastic personalities of the two under discussion
Sorry dawg, but the amount of evidence against both men (Mentzer and Webb) was rather overwhelming. Thus, if the perps are not called to the carpet other con organizers will be unaware of the nature of the people they invite. Because of others “naming and shaming” the problem people, convention organizers can avoid making mistakes.
If convention organizers continue to ignore the wants of their attendees, then pulling support is the easiest decision ever made. If the player base complains, ask them why they are ok with supporting an organization that turns a blind eye to abuse and or harassment.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I'm flagging this to be removed.
From what I understand, Tonya has already addressed the concerns around this individual and the event it happened at.
Your posts about this have been removed before, and I expect this one to follow suit.
Nope. The entire time I was more pissed off at my venture captain. I want to know why after one of my friends was abused by Boston's venture captain that he was allowed to continue to harass and abuse other women.
Edit:And me.
Organized Play Manager
|
| 31 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adam,
At this time, I am not aware of either Zac S or Erik Tenkar being involved with Org Play at an organizer level. I'm not up on all our players, but I haven't received anything that would make me think they play either. If this is wrong, please let me know.
OPF has a chain of command to go through. If there are issues with Venture-Captains, we ask for RVCs to be informed. If issues with RVCs, we ask for the Org Play Manager/OPF rep to be informed. The last time you brought harassment up in these forums, I asked you to send me information, offline. This already bumped one level, but I took your allegations seriously and wanted to take action. I did not receive any emails. I cannot look into or act on anything without facts - what, when, where, who, how. Just saying I was harassed isn't enough to go on. I invite you once again to send that information directly to me. You can either use the organizedplay@paizo.com, which goes to Alex and I, or my direct email: tonya.woldridge@paizo.com.
Regarding your friend's harassment. We don't discuss our investigations with third parties. If your friend wishes to raise the issue, my email is open to them as well.
As a note, we keep records on all issues. If a person harassed once and was counseled and is harassing again, that means we review what has been done and then take further steps. It is our goal to provide safe gaming spaces. Sometimes this means we set expectations and attempt to correct bad behaviours before removing people from the spaces. Sometimes it means direct removal. What happens and how depends on the circumstances, prior behaviors, and what is happening. Just because you don't see something happen doesn't mean we aren't working on a problem.
I'd also like to point out you have a new RVC in the Northeast. If you aren't happy with talking to me, consider reaching out to Dan. In fact, as I noted above, that would be the first step in resolving an issue with a VC.
Two years ago, Paizo looked into the issues surrounding TotalCon and determined we would not support the event without a change in the convention policy. That TotalCon doesn't want to make changes is their right, just as Paizo has the right to choose which shows its employees attend. Local communities can decide to support or not support their conventions, that is their right as well. The guidelines OP has for the communities is to support as they feel right. If you are wanting the local community to boycott, I would open a conversation with the area organizers (once again, Dan can assist with this) on what information you have and why you don't think it a good convention to support.
For you, and everyone else, my inbox is open. This is our community and it is up to us to make it one we want to play in.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
the amount of evidence against both men (Mentzer and Webb) was rather overwhelming
So what do you want me to do about it?
I had to Google Mentzer, Webb, Zak S, Erik Tenkar, and TotalCon. I have no idea who any of these people are, and I've never heard of the convention before. To that end, I don't know who Adam is either.
That's my point - not that someone is guilty or not guilty or someone else is credible or not credible, but that telling me won't help in any tangible way.
I'm not going to stop playing PFS because someone that I've never heard of accused someone else that I've never heard of do something that's going to be disputed at some event I've never heard of.
I'm more than happy to have a discussion about how to make Society better and if there are rules we need to put in place to keep everyone safe. But I don't need to hear Adam's personal story to have that discussion (put in a positive sense, he doesn't need to subject himself to Internet abuse for me to consider his situation as serious). We, or at least all the people who are not actively burying their heads in the sand, can very quickly agree that there are a lot of creeps, and that every organization should have strong, clear, and enforced rules against behavior that makes others uncomfortable (including any behavior worse than creepy).
I encourage Adam to tell their story to people who are in positions of power. I also encourage us to go ahead and have a discussion about what we as a group need to do differently, just without posting personal details or specific accusations.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the amount of evidence against both men (Mentzer and Webb) was rather overwhelmingSo what do you want me to do about it?
I had to Google Mentzer, Webb, Zak S, Erik Tenkar, and TotalCon. I have no idea who any of these people are, and I've never heard of the convention before. To that end, I don't know who Adam is either.
That's my point - not that someone is guilty or not guilty or someone else is credible or not credible, but that (b)telling me won't help in any tangible way.[/b]
I'm not going to stop playing PFS because someone that I've never heard of accused someone else that I've never heard of do something that's going to be disputed at some event I've never heard of.
You wanted to shift responsibility from people that expose abusers to con organizers. With out knowing why these people were being castigated. So, with out the name and shame posts you would be ignorant of what these people did and likely continue to be. You needed to look up who these people are; would you have done so with out the name and shame?
So now that you have educated yourself, would you still pay money to attend a con where any of the above people were VIPs?
That’s my point. I don’t need to worry about inviting any of the above to one of my cons. You have the choice to pay money to support a con that does invite that person. I won’t.
I’m not asking you to quit PFS over the accusations made against these people. I’m asking you to be cognizant of your support for a con that does invite one of these people. Is this best for the community? Is this best for the hobby?
|
|
So now that you have educated yourself, would you still pay money to attend a con where any of the above people were VIPs?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: As someone above pointed out, these people are not PFS leaders, nor even players, so we're automatically talking about 2nd-degree connections here.
And I'll be brutally honest - I didn't try that hard to "educate myself," so if you were hoping that in the 3 minutes I allotted to this task I found a mountain of overwhelming evidence, you're going to be sorely disappointed. In Mentzer's case, it doesn't even seem like there was anything that happened at the convention other than a non-problematic introduction, followed by some creepy Facebook messages after the convention. Do I think creepy Facebook messages are a problem? Yes. Do I think it's a problem that warrants every single attendee of every single convention he attends be alerted to? No.
There are a LOT of creeps out there. And to just say that you're blanket boycotting every single event that every single creep is involved with is impractical. If you think that the four people listed above are all the problematic individuals, then that's a gross undercount. Creep isn't binary and there are degrees of creepiness and also degrees of contrition. How do you intend to handle someone who committed a moderate infraction but has been a decent person about it, versus someone who committed some minor infraction but totally unrepentant? It's a tough call sometimes, and not one that I really want to make.
This is exactly why I push the responsibility onto the organizers. I'm a realist - no policy is going to be 100% perfect, but if a place looks like they have a good policy in place (strong policy, clear expectations, consistent enforcement), I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Let me be real - I have no freaking clue what the policy is of any of the conventions I have attended. I don't know the organizers' names, I don't know who the VIPs were, I didn't Google any of them to see if they were accused, or had criminal records, or a history of problematic statements. I gave the convention my money - so I could play Pathfinder Society.
In TotalCon's case, it seems like Paizo made a decision to drop sponsorship. That definitely gives me pause, both from a moral standpoint (I think Paizo has good judgement) but also from a purely practical standpoint - if PFS isn't going to have a presence there, then I have fewer reasons to attend. I probably wouldn't attend TotalCon, but the biggest factor in that decision was that Paizo stopped sponsoring it, not because I found something in my 3-minute Google search.
I'm not cyberstalking everyone on that list to proactively make sure I'm not supporting an event they are featured at.
Although this all sounds negative, I'm intentionally highlighting the low effort and low quality of my research to underscore the point that I (and others like me) are very poor targets for this sort of naming and shaming. If you organize conventions, more power to you - and you're going to need it, because I'm looking to you to do all the extra research and make all the tough decisions that I'm unequipped and unwilling to make.
And I'm going to pay you $80 so I can show up and more or less trust that things have been done well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the amount of evidence against both men (Mentzer and Webb) was rather overwhelmingSo what do you want me to do about it?
I had to Google Mentzer, Webb, Zak S, Erik Tenkar, and TotalCon. I have no idea who any of these people are, and I've never heard of the convention before. To that end, I don't know who Adam is either.
That's my point - not that someone is guilty or not guilty or someone else is credible or not credible, but that (b)telling me won't help in any tangible way.[/b]
I'm not going to stop playing PFS because someone that I've never heard of accused someone else that I've never heard of do something that's going to be disputed at some event I've never heard of.
So now that you have educated yourself, would you still pay money to attend a con where any of the above people were VIPs?
That’s my point. I don’t need to worry about inviting any of the above to one of my cons. You have the choice to pay money to support a con that does invite that person. I won’t.
I'm still confused about what's the goal here. Are these two VIPS (or attendees or program organizers) in a con? Which con?
Or is the point here just to more generally suggest that as a participant (not organizer or GM), one should check the background of con VIP's and program organizers?
You needed to look up who these people are; would you have done so with out the name and shame?
I think the point is that as a random PFS player, I didn't -need- to look these people up. Indeed, trying to shift the responsibility from the people who can actually solve these issues (The con organizer) to every single con attendee is simply not feasible, nor a realistic demand.
Now, if the problem was that there's a con where these two are attending AND the organizers have been alerted AND they aren't going to do anything about it, THEN you could try to persuade attendees to boycott the event. According to totalcon's page, next totalcon is in february 2021. The site doesn't list any guests yet nor sponsors. OP's post seem to be a complaint about some random podcast where a random name was pissed off that "everyone" was trying to shut down another person. There's quite literally no context on how this is relevant to PFS, PF, or Paizo.
From Tonya's response, it seems that Paizo/Organized Play has already looked into the issue and decided to stop supporting this event. That's probably the extent of what paizo can do, and is certainly way beyond what random forum readers can do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now that you have educated yourself, would you still pay money to attend a con where any of the above people were VIPs?
Am I the only person who finds that the VIPs and 'Guests of honour' are usually pretty pointless fluff and add nothing to the event? Legit I feel that most of these characters are being brought to the event by the event organisers who are infatuated with them and finding a way to hang out with people they are a bit starstruck by, or that the VIPs are a way to show off to other conorgs what cool community celebrity they got to their event.
I have had to think about bringing them to cons and just made the call that it was a big cost for little actual gain and the average player simply didn't give two hoots except as novelty value, so yeah nah, and threads like these just indicate it is just more risk and headache to deal with because if one of them acts in a what that is (or could be perceived) as out of line I'll get people like the OP dragging people (including me) through the mud regardless of what action is taken. I mean it's all easy to throw criticism from the sidelines, but I notice the people with the good ideas for exactly how these things could be handled and the best ways to run conventions are never the people who are actually running conventions.
Life is much easier in the peanut gallery I suppose.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
TotalCon's case, it seems like Paizo made a decision to drop sponsorship. That definitely gives me pause, both from a moral standpoint (I think Paizo has good judgement) but also from a purely practical standpoint - if PFS isn't going to have a presence there, then I have fewer reasons to attend. I probably wouldn't attend TotalCon, but the biggest factor in that decision was that Paizo stopped sponsoring it, not because I found something in my 3-minute Google search.
What do you mean? There was Pathfinder Society at Totalcon. It never stopped. I don't know what withdrawing support entailed beyond having an employee attend.
|
Long answer: As someone above pointed out, these people are not PFS leaders, nor even players, so we're automatically talking about 2nd-degree connections here.
Just to clarify a few points, first Paizo has never “sponsored” TotalCon. They did send staff to the show, but that’s not the same as sponsoring the event. They have decided not to continue that practice until TotalCon changes their procedures, but PFS can and was still present there. Most events are organized by local volunteers who do not seek, nor need the approval of Paizo to run sanctioned organized play. The organizer can still receive convention support, even if Paizo decides not to send staff.
TotalCon is not the only con where something like this has occurred. A few others in the Midwest have also struggled with guests of honor with questionable histories that resulted in some backlash and/or boycotting.
The issue isn’t so much that these people attend the event, it’s that they either led a seminar where non-inclusive or harassing language was used or they have a lengthy history of inappropriate behavior yet the convention has decided to “honor” them as a special guest.
You many not concern yourself with these issues, but a lot of people do, many because they have been the victims of the bad, sometimes criminal behavior and they don’t want to risk experiencing again. Knowing that a particular person with a history is going to be present at the show is incredibly helpful to those people and if the convention does decide to honor that person, it shows a lack of judgement that could be far reaching and therefore provide a space where the bad behavior can exist without consequence.
It is easy for these types of things to turn into witch hunts, so it falls to us in the community to educate ourselves as to the nature of a person’s discretions, decide what we feel is an appropriate response, and then share that information with the attendees so they can participate with a clear understanding of what is going on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn’t so much that these people attend the event, it’s that they either led a seminar where non-inclusive or harassing language was used ...
That sounds like a problem for the convention organizers.
... or they have a lengthy history of inappropriate behavior yet the convention has decided ...
Again, that sounds like a problem for the convention organizers.
You many not concern yourself with these issues, but a lot of people do ...
And this is inevitably where the discussion ends up. You assume that I don't care about the issue, which is (a) false, but more importantly, (b) a fundamental misunderstanding of my point.
I'm not saying I don't care. I'm saying I don't want to deal with it.
I, and many others, deal with this poo poo ALL THE TIME when we're not playing Pathfinder. I've had to sort out accusations, I've had to sit down with both sides and have uncomfortable discussions, and I've had to make hiring / firing decisions with incomplete knowledge. It's a tough, thankless job - but also an important job.
It's tough enough when I have resources to gather information and explicit authority to act on the problem. I don't want to do it in my spare time for a hobby, especially when I neither have resources nor authority to do anything.
I want to be in the peanut gallery on this one.
But, but, you say. But conventions rely on income and attendees can boycott.
Then call for a boycott.
Don't ask people to listen to your story, or tell people to look it up on the Internet, and then get mad when they don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
Tell the convention organizers. Tell the VC. Tell the RVC. Tell Tonya. Tell people who are tasked with and even paid to respond to this problem. They are given resources to investigate and authority to make decisions.
Whoever's scheduling PFS games at TotalCon? That person should be the #1 target. Because if I go to the TotalCon webpage and there's no PFS there, and I write to the local lodge and they "we've chosen not to be at that convention because of _____," that carries infinitely more weight than "read my 28-tweet expose and decide for yourself but if you disagree with me then you're wrong."
|
While I do agree that contacting the appropriate individuals should have been the first step, I acknowledge that unacceptable behavior needs awareness on all fronts. Thank you for coming forward and presenting information. In the future, I encourage you to post and then leave it. The people who will act will take the info, and the others will talk to empty space. A win-win.
But again, step 1 is contacting the appropriate leadership individuals.
|
|
I just reported the harassment of five people (including myself) by the former convention organizer of Totalcon
When you say convention organizer are you talking about the person who organized the whole convention or just the person organizing PFS. Cause those are two very different issues and are handled in a different way.
|
|
Am I the only person who finds that the VIPs and 'Guests of honour' are usually pretty pointless fluff and add nothing to the event?
Probably not, but there are plenty of people who pay attention to who those guests of honor are, though it depends on a lot of factors. I believe that there is an author and artist guest of honor for PaizoCon and those people are very much looked at by the community...but that's PaizoCon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not, but there are plenty of people who pay attention to who those guests of honor are, though it depends on a lot of factors. I believe that there is an author and artist guest of honor for PaizoCon and those people are very much looked at by the community...but that's PaizoCon.
Fair enough - I'm all ears if the VIPs are happy to come and GM sessions or bring some rare or retired scenario, but otherwise it just looks like another cost overhead that doesn't offset itself in door takings.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People also attend cons to listen to panels, especially those featuring guests of honor. That *does* have a significant effect on door takings.
Then make the convention organizers choose.
Withdraw PFS from the event so long as the problematic VIP is a guest of honor. Better yet, hold PFS events in the same time slot but outside the convention, like at a hotel down the street.
Now attendees have a clear choice, choose PFS or choose the convention.
One of two things will happen:
1. PFS has enough clout to get the convention's attention, and an agreement is forged, or ...
2. PFS doesn't have enough clout and it's clear that if PFS can't collectively force a change, then its members individually have even less power.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm pretty sure it's almost always going to be case #2.
Fortunately we have a good working relationship with the local D&D organizers (and, for that matter, with most of the local convention organizers). If PFS & D&D present a unified front we can normally get the ear of the convention leadership.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I just reported the harassment of five people (including myself) by the former convention organizer of TotalconWhen you say convention organizer are you talking about the person who organized the whole convention or just the person organizing PFS. Cause those are two very different issues and are handled in a different way.
Venture captain organizing PFS. Sorry for not being explicit.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
To avoid any confusion:
In my comments about Guests of Honor on panels, their impact on con attendance, and PFS relationships with con organizers, I was speaking in general terms (except for some specifics based on my own experience as a PFS con organizer in our local area), and not about Totalcon (about which I know very little).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mildly object to the public declaration that no complaints have been received - much like the canary clauses, their absence ends up sending a stronger message than their presence (sometimes inadvertently).
So if you say Person A and Person B have not had any complaints against them, and then don't say the same thing about Person C, then the implication is that Person C has had complaints - even if you simply forgot to include Person C!
This is exactly the reason why these things should be handled behind closed doors (first), and aired in a public forum as a very last resort.
If Adam's complaint is handled to his satisfaction, is he going to backtrack across every thread and post "all good now, never mind what I said before"? Probably not.
If Adam's complaint causes action to be taken, is Totalcon going to backtrack across every thread that preliminary defenses were made and post "we received allegations, never mind what we said before"? Probably not.
Adam's accusations and Totalcon's response are now semi-immortalized. As new evidence comes to light, the old threads and posts will still be there for people to read.
If I had to guess, that was the reason threads were deleted in the past.
Accusations should be taken seriously, and if we (as a society, also as a Society) want that to work, it just means that we shouldn't be finding about them on the forums (or on Twitter), because this is a terrible place to be holding a trial.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, convention owners and Paizo have not always handled issues like this as best as they could so sometimes it requires someone to bring their complaints to the public to apply pressure in order for issues to be resolved. I’m not endorsing Adam’s accusations, nor am I refuting them. Just saying that if complaints have been brought to TotalCon/Paizo’s attention and no visible effect has come out of it, I can understand why it would appear here.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Waco
|
Venture captain organizing PFS. Sorry for not being explicit.I just reported the harassment of five people (including myself) by the former convention organizer of TotalconWhen you say convention organizer are you talking about the person who organized the whole convention or just the person organizing PFS. Cause those are two very different issues and are handled in a different way.
Adam, I'm the RVC for the Northeast US/Canada. Can you please forward this email to me as well? pfs.rvc.northeast@gmail.com
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
This is exactly the reason why these things should be handled behind closed doors (first), and aired in a public forum as a very last resort.
My one friend was told by the former regional venture coordinator to work with her abuser and gaslighter....
Also, I have a gut feeling that if I handled this privately I would have been kicked out of Organized Play.
Adam, I'm the RVC for the Northeast US/Canada. Can you please forward this email to me as well? pfs.rvc.northeast@gmail.com
Ive sent it. Though I complete forgot this when I sent the email but I'm not sure if you have your predecessors documents. If you do then I'd really love to know what information you had about the incident.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a gut feeling that if I handled this privately I would have been kicked out of Organized Play.
You're always free to post publicly after you've attempted to handle it privately. You can never handle it privately after you've gone public.
There's a time and a place for public naming and shaming. If your RVC is the problem there are other options that come before "post with your real name in a public forum."
This is as much for your protection as it is for the protection of the process. Public accusations are hell for the accuser; I don't think you should subject yourself to that unless there really is no better alternative.