Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084577https://twitter.com/sphynxian/status/882439561237995520?s=21

This is one of the original reports that started everything. Note the actual report and note the distortions that have appeared since then.

The actual report says nothing. That Twitter thread gives you nothing. We don't know anything.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084513Safe harbor provisions usually only apply when you're not an active curator of the content. I'm not an expert on what all the ins and outs are there, but I think there might be a strong argument to make that TBP does not fall under safe harbor. Maybe.

Well, making someone a moderator sure seems like it would be a slam dunk if you wanted to establish an express authority argument for agency.  Once you have people controlling expression and making definitive statements as an agent of the site, I would think safe harbor would be out of the question.

Quote from: Xisiqomelir;1084402On the adjunct discussion, if she tells you to stop, please be the gentleman you were raised to be and stop. If she (hopefully) digs it, you two might do as innumerable couples have done before you and forge a successful relationship from a chance meeting at the bar.

This is one of the mistakes that we've made (myself, quite notably so) in this thread, and in similar, other ones:

We're being distracted by discussions that are accessible to us. We don't need to define and micro-define "drinking", "gentlemanship", or "harassment", even though that's tempting: We need to assess which of the stories we're being told in this one case is true.  That we're not willing to adopt the accuser's general worldview or sign system doesn't make us partisan. It makes us objective.

Webb has repeatedly been called a "well documented sexual harasser". Nobody is being "anti-women" or "pro-harassment" for saying that we won't accept those severe allegations at face value.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084482The moderators there are making statements that Bill Webb is a well documented sexual harasser. They are participating in the discussion. Usually a site is somewhat safe from content posted in their forums, but in this case I have to wonder.

This is why the lawsuit is so interesting; if this extends to RPGNet - or to places like this one, as well -, it could bring lasting change to the scene as a whole. - Stuff like what happened to me suddenly could become significant; I was handed a temp-ban for asking for further explanations of the allegations against Webb.

If it could be proven that Skatos Ltd. (?) ordered their unpayed employees/mods, in any way, to go hard on Webb, then that could be tough for them because this could well be characterized as Applecline trying to get rid of a competitor.

Quote from: jhkim;1084574I completely agree that making false claims to damage someone's business should be punished. If Brookes and/or Hensley lied about what Webb did at PaizoCon 2017 - then they and anyone knowingly passing along their lies should be held responsible. If those claims were truthful, though, then they should not be punished.

This. The people accusing Webb of harassment are making statements that are damaging his reputation, both as a professional, and as a private individual. So, they are in dire need back them up, or to apologize.

I think that Paizo Con did the right thing a few years ago if they asked Bill Webb to leave. The policy of believing the accuser, taking them seriously is important for safety for con attendees. Believing the accuser means taking action as if the accusation was true and treating it seriously. It does not mean unquestioning acceptance of an investigation reveals otherwise and it does not mean launching a crusade against the accused on social media.

It appears that Total Con is inviting Bill Webb back. He has attended several other cons since the incident took place. The initial report by his partners said they instructed him to act differently. Since I trust the con organizers in many other ways, I am willing to accept their judgment on a guest. If I disagree, I can either not go or I can go and avoid the guest. I also don't mind complaining about it in public in terms of attending the con, but there are limits to this.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084608It appears that Total Con is inviting Bill Webb back. He has attended several other cons since the incident took place. The initial report by his partners said they instructed him to act differently. Since I trust the con organizers in many other ways, I am willing to accept their judgment on a guest. If I disagree, I can either not go or I can go and avoid the guest. I also don't mind complaining about it in public in terms of attending the con, but there are limits to this.

TBP brigading SJW mob is having another meltdown. I swear whenever things do not go exact their way their so called fake naivety and innocence makes my day. "What do you mean totalcon invited Webb back. How dare they? " Sorry but most SJWs do not buy product and all they do is make a lot of white noise until they get what they want. Then they go off so why would most cons or rpg companies give a fuck.

It's funny to me seeing TBP gamers list all the rpgs that are now banned from their collection. Pretty soon all they will have for enjoyment is an adult coloring book and crayons.

They don't get that Frog God Games and Bill Webb was a guest last year and that must have been a very good experience to want him back. I don't think there is much upside constantly kowtowing to the perpetually outraged.

However, cons need a good and enforced anti-harassment policy. There are problem attendees and the general public should be safe within reason. If there is a reported issue, then ask the accused to leave unless it is a ridiculous accusation. There is always time to look into it later, error in the side of safety.

The internet concern mobs are stupid and they parse words too much and that does not make anyone any more safe.

They'll pry my coloring books and crayons from my cold, dead hands. :mad:

That said, I feel it is good this totalitarian group think is facing legal repurcussions for dabbling into unprotected speech for means of vigilantism. We made such speech unprotected for a very good reason. This is an old issue (older than the USA, by far) and we already built tools to prevent its excesses -- use them!

Of course some on TBP have to point out that the honor guest list is all male of course. If the offer is made yo invite women and they refuse for whatever reason. Are cons suddenly supposed to stop inviting guests of honor simply because it's an all male list. It shows the perpetually outraged have no clue how to run a business let alone a gaming con imo.

So I'm going to go to a con with no guest list because said con biwed to SJW pressure and could not get woman guest of honor to attend so they invite no guest of honor. So I'm paying for the pleasure of gaming when I can stay at home and so for free no thanks.

Quote from: sureshot;1084618Of course some on TBP have to point out that the honor guest list is all male of course. If the offer is made yo invite women and they refuse for whatever reason. Are cons suddenly supposed to stop inviting guests of honor simply because it's an all male list. It shows the perpetually outraged have no clue how to run a business let alone a gaming con imo.

So I'm going to go to a con with no guest list because said con biwed to SJW pressure and could not get woman guest of honor to attend so they invite no guest of honor. So I'm paying for the pleasure of gaming when I can stay at home and so for free no thanks.

Greetings!

LOL. Indeed, my friend. Who gives a fuck if there aren't any women on the fucking hornoured gues list? Geesus. I know there are some women involved with the gaming industry in professional ways. From year to year it's not some terrible atrocity if there are no women on the honoured guest list. There will be lots of women attending the cons though as ordinary guests. That's just fine. All these morons wanting a crying, shrieking shit-storm over the stupidist of things.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rafael;1084604Webb has repeatedly been called a "well documented sexual harasser". Nobody is being "anti-women" or "pro-harassment" for saying that we won't accept those severe allegations at face value.

I've played in Bill Webb's convention games what, three or four times? Seen him at at least six conventions total. That dude is 1) super friendly, 2) extremely high strung, 3) and drinks heavily. His wife and kids are usually with him, which makes this whole thing seem suspect...at 2AM when someone has been drinking throughout the entire day still seems 100% lucid and "into gaming", while talking about his kids in front of a bunch of gamers with his wife present, it almost makes zero sense to me he'd be hitting on some young girl. Like when would he have the time? The dude is frantic as shit, running a ton of games and basically shilling his company. I'm inclined to agree with the whole offered the girl a cigarette and she freaked out. Even if it was a pass, so what? FGG telling Bill Webb to avoid talking to young autistic millennials who take everything out of context? Could totally see that happening. Bill Webb sexually assaulting someone? Nope.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084615However, cons need a good and enforced anti-harassment policy. There are problem attendees and the general public should be safe within reason. If there is a reported issue, then ask the accused to leave unless it is a ridiculous accusation.

You don't need an exploitable "anti-harassment policy" to do that, though.

Makes me wonder if bars and pubs now need anti-harassment policies to kick out drunks.

They even may be freaking out over a placeholder list that just is a copy from last year.

S'mon, I am sorry, but any good policy can be exploited if someone has bad intentions. More often than not a good policy that encourages reporting of issues helps. It keeps the creeps more in check and encourages them to be reported and taken care of. It was not the Paizo policy and action that was an issue, it was the assumption mob afterwards. In the original Enworld thread you were fine throwing Webb under the bus if he was drunk and misbehaving.

Quote from: Almost_Useless;1084584Well, making someone a moderator sure seems like it would be a slam dunk if you wanted to establish an express authority argument for agency.  Once you have people controlling expression and making definitive statements as an agent of the site, I would think safe harbor would be out of the question.

It's not quite that cut and dry though. YouTube still falls under Safe Harbor provisions, even though it is actually capable of curating its content (although that may come under fire very soon as part of the reason the Safe Harbor parts of the DCMA were put in place was because companies were saying, "We seriously cannot curate this much data!" Well... now you're showing you can, so either stop curating it or be subject to the lawsuit).

For instance, there are many things said on this board that could be viewed as defamation or libel (but good luck proving damages beyond nominal). Should the Pundit be held accountable for all those things said on his board? Your answer may color how you would apply Safe Harbor provisions (which is what a jury would likely have to do).

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084627In the original Enworld thread you were fine throwing Webb under the bus if he was drunk and misbehaving.

LOL. Do you have a cite?

I've always said that misbehaving drunks should be ejected from the premises. I'm pretty sure I never called for Webb to have his livelihood destroyed.

Edit: Do you mean this?

S'mon - Tuesday, 24th October, 2017, 06:24 PM Report Post
This Robert Brookes is certainly a busy little bee. That's two scalps in less than a week.

I expect Webb did make an off-colour remark. I'd be a lot more surprised if he really physically attacked a Paizo employee, so I wonder what was behind that allegation.

& then
S'mon - Tuesday, 24th October, 2017, 11:17 PM Report Post
Yes, this drunkenly following her around the hotel thing sounds pretty bad.

& then
S'mon - Wednesday, 25th October, 2017, 08:08 AM Report Post
Quote Originally Posted by billd91  View Post
>>My wife and daughter aren't as safe as I am in this world<<
That's not true and you'd be unwise to believe it; men are a lot more likely to be physically attacked than women.

That's just the first 2 pages, but I'm mostly seeing me push back, if anything, and being criticised for lack of outrage. Quite brave of me in fact. To quote Captain Marvel, I was quite the noble warrior hero.  

I didn't go off on an anti-SocJus rant because (a) I'd be banned and (b) if Hensley had been harrassed that would be the wrong thing to do. I don't believe in "Believe All Women" but I don't believe in "Disbelieve* All Women" either.

*I guess the wonder of theRPGsite is you can be attacked here both for not Believing AND for not Disbelieving!

Quote from: S'mon;1084624You don't need an exploitable "anti-harassment policy" to do that, though.

Makes me wonder if bars and pubs now need anti-harassment policies to kick out drunks.

That's a good question. Why do gaming conventions need a different set of rules from bars?