According to Stacy, the crime is that Webb drinks. Again, I searched public records back 10 years and no sign of a DUI or other such problems which are pretty common for people with drinking issues.

The "Frog" that "misgendered" them is an independent contractor, not part of the company. I read the Facebook thread where this supposedly happened and it did not happen as Stacy said it did. When they were working as a contractor for FGG, they identified as a woman.

They are not the morality police about drinking, they do not run the cons or own or operate the hotels and since they just doubled down on the "victims told me" narrative, they will face more questioning under oath.

They also just admitted that Webb's account in accurate. There is an insinuation that there is more, but, again, no details.

I wonder if the angry horde at the purple side will be able to accept the facts that maybe this is not so cut and dry, and that an outrage mob and banning for any questions maybe is not the best action. Maybe they are trusting the wrong people.

Aha!  OK, so the Facebook post links to a statement from Bill Webb on the Frog God Games site, which I gather is the source of the Youtuber video that was posted earlier.

https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/

I'm comparing this first with Christopher Helton's summary of statements on ENWorld.  

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4613-Harassment-At-PaizoCon-2017

Helton's summary was vague that In an incident involving alcohol, Webb allegedly sexually harassed another guest at the convention and when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer. Webb doesn't mention that someone was injured or what happened to them. Matt Finch of Frog God Games gave an also vague statement that Bill Webb took an action and engaged in speech that could be construed as a sexual advance or as gender-dismissive - which also doesn't mention an injury.

The other point is the statements from Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens and the target BJ Hensley on the Paizo boards, which apparently was quoted later as she initially didn't want it to be public - but of course now is.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uoph?Open-Letter-From-Paizo-CEO-Lisa-Stevens

Hensley's statement was not details but she did say that the behavior was very inappropriate and unwanted, and that the individual stalked her though the halls while too drunk to drive. It doesn't sound to me like Hensley is talking about the cigarette offer or the arm around her, but rather something more.


My impression is that Stevens and Hensley had originally wanted this resolved quietly with Webb's agreement. However, Helton and Dellorfano insisted on further action against Webb, such that he is now suing all of them. It sounds like Webb is admitting to certain acts and apologizing for those, but is denying other actions that Hensley alludes to.

Quote from: jhkim;1085654Aha!  OK, so the Facebook post links to a statement from Bill Webb on the Frog God Games site, which I gather is the source of the Youtuber video that was posted earlier.

https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/

I'm comparing this first with Christopher Helton's summary of statements on ENWorld.  

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4613-Harassment-At-PaizoCon-2017

Helton's summary was vague that In an incident involving alcohol, Webb allegedly sexually harassed another guest at the convention and when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer. Webb doesn't mention that someone was injured or what happened to them. Matt Finch of Frog God Games gave an also vague statement that Bill Webb took an action and engaged in speech that could be construed as a sexual advance or as gender-dismissive - which also doesn't mention an injury.

The other point is the statements from Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens and the target BJ Hensley on the Paizo boards, which apparently was quoted later as she initially didn't want it to be public - but of course now is.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uoph?Open-Letter-From-Paizo-CEO-Lisa-Stevens

Hensley's statement was not details but she did say that the behavior was very inappropriate and unwanted, and that the individual stalked her though the halls while too drunk to drive. It doesn't sound to me like Hensley is talking about the cigarette offer or the arm around her, but rather something more.


My impression is that Stevens and Hensley had originally wanted this resolved quietly with Webb's agreement. However, Helton and Dellorfano insisted on further action against Webb, such that he is now suing all of them. It sounds like Webb is admitting to certain acts and apologizing for those, but is denying other actions that Hensley alludes to.

But hey. Let's boycott SJG and Frog God and any Con that invites Bill Webb because every event is so crystal clear.

Quote from: Shasarak;1085640You do know that you four just made the list, right?

If I was a betting man I would wager that you are all gone in under 4 weeks.

And that is the terrible thing about RPG.net. It can be a fairly nice place. I have never had a problem over there. I have though seen some pretty crack-headed statements over there though by members and just tend to avoid those threads.

Quote from: Shasarak;1085640You do know that you four just made the list, right?

If I was a betting man I would wager that you are all gone in under 4 weeks.

Or even sooner than that. While getting insulted by a mod and they will invent an new wird such as cross forum micro aggression pillinstion or something to that effect.

I still don't get that first copied tweet in Webb's statement.

QuoteTo my knowledge, Bill has never hit anyone. The confusion came b/c the report said that someone was injured stopping him, but that was a case of "I'm not on physical shape to confront a drunk and injured my arm pulling him away," not Bill being violent.

I don't know how physically pulling a drunk away from someone doesn't equate to physically confronting the drunk? I'm guessing it's more to do with "there was no rollaround fighting". Either way, Webb doesn't explain that or deny that, and I don't know if we have other information about that incident.

But ISTM if someone gets injured pulling a drunk off / away from another person, that injury is ultimately on the drunk, even if the injury was unintended.

Quote from: wmarshal;1085631Now that there is a lawsuit Stacy has decided to ignore the actions she took against SJG, GaryCon etc.

https://m.facebook.com/sdellorfano/posts/2472197469459742

Per the above statement it's all just about Bill Webb. Maybe it should be (Or not. We should find out more as the process rolls on.), but she pretends she didn't lead a boycott against Gary Con or try to rile up an internet mob against SJG. No mention of those actions though it's almost guaranteed those will play a significant role in suit.

Stacy really needs to stop posting things online and consult an attorney. She's giving the plaintiffs more ammo to use against her

Quote from: Omega;1085722And that is the terrible thing about RPG.net. It can be a fairly nice place. I have never had a problem over there. I have though seen some pretty crack-headed statements over there though by members and just tend to avoid those threads.

Honestly, if you stuck to just the D&D Forum you'd probably think it was a relatively normal place. Sure, there's a thread on "decolonizing D&D" about halfway down the first page, but there's also plenty of "Let's Read" threads, one on fantastic elements you could put in your game and general how to deal with running/playing the game issues.

If that was the place you visited, you'd probably think the most common reason for banning was edition warring.

Quote from: Chocolate Sauce;1085733Stacy really needs to stop posting things online and consult an attorney. She's giving the plaintiffs more ammo to use against her

So much this.

Quote from: Chocolate Sauce;1085733Stacy really needs to stop posting things online and consult an attorney. She's giving the plaintiffs more ammo to use against her

She's too dumb to know that continuing to slander a guy like this is also grounds for a lawsuit.

"That's BJ's story to tell, just know that it wasn't this one, isolated incident." - ORLY? 1) BJ Hensley hasn't said shizzle yet and 2) isn't this just making up more unsubstantiated nonsense?

Quote from: wmarshal;1085631Now that there is a lawsuit Stacy has decided to ignore the actions she took against SJG, GaryCon etc.

https://m.facebook.com/sdellorfano/posts/2472197469459742

Per the above statement it's all just about Bill Webb. Maybe it should be (Or not. We should find out more as the process rolls on.), but she pretends she didn't lead a boycott against Gary Con or try to rile up an internet mob against SJG. No mention of those actions though it's almost guaranteed those will play a significant role in suit.

From Stacy:
"He wants you to think this is about behavior he *didn't* do, but it's not about that at all. This is strictly, 110% about things he's already said he did."
Which was.....? I can't believe how much of this shit I have read now, and it's STILL not clear what this egregious action actually was.

Quote from: sureshot;1085726Or even sooner than that. While getting insulted by a mod and they will invent an new wird such as cross forum micro aggression pillinstion or something to that effect.

Moderator sealion dogpiling?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1085614The Human Resource version of "believe the victim" is a gross distortion of a (valid) psychological counseling technique.  Trying to apply it to anything gaming related is even more of a distortion, with less training, less understanding, and thus more opportunity to, well, achieve a level of foolishness not available to your mere mortal, average fool.  It's something you'd need to work up to gradually, by say, hanging around a group of screaming people with logic problems for long periods of time.

"Believe the victim" doesn't mean "Take the accusations seriously."  That's the distortion.  What it means is something more akin to:  While engaged in counseling and trying to determine why the person who has suffered trauma is suffering it, there are ways of asking questions and listening that are beneficial and others that are harmful.  Mainly, it refers to feelings.  If the victim freaks out when spiders are encountered, take them at their word that they freak out about spiders.  Don't assume they know why they freak out when spiders are encountered, though.  The more nasty the trauma, the more likely they won't know--which is probably why they are in counseling in the first place.  

Given that distinction, I hope it is obvious why the statement "believe the victim" is meaningless in an RPG context.  An RPG convention has a much more limited form of the same concerns that an HR department does.  Essentially, they need to be seen to have exercised some diligence in any nasty situation that might reflect on their bottom line, ability to continue to operate, legal responsibility, etc.  Such decisions can be made to help particular people, but more often they are made for public relations reasons, vague legal worries, or more often simple bureaucratic inertia.

So let's stop pretending that the convention banning anyone for anything short of illegal acts or repeated harassment has anything to do with "victims" at all.  It's the convention looking out for itself.  Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes.  Such groups make hard decisions all the time about who they want to attract or repel, and then they take the benefits and costs that go with those decisions.  The preening over looking out for victims is self-indulgent nonsense.  "Take problems seriously" is good at the convention level (or any level).  Pretending that "believe the victim" has anything to do with it, is delusional.

This is correct. Someone should have quoted it sooner saying so.

We are fleshy human blobs and should react to each other with compassion and empathy in our direct interactions.

Quote from: Chris24601;1085734Honestly, if you stuck to just the D&D Forum you'd probably think it was a relatively normal place. Sure, there's a thread on "decolonizing D&D" about halfway down the first page, but there's also plenty of "Let's Read" threads, one on fantastic elements you could put in your game and general how to deal with running/playing the game issues.

If that was the place you visited, you'd probably think the most common reason for banning was edition warring.

I agree.  There's a lot of good discussion over there, but there's also a lot of politics that creeps into some threads.  I usually just tend to ignore those threads and stick with the gaming-only messages, but sometimes it's difficult.

As I get older, I see the wisdom in the old "don't talk politics or religion" stance.  It gets really old when someone starts talking politics and all of a sudden the forums polarize.

Is Stacy's Facebook statement longer with different details than when it was first posted?