Quote from: asron819;1083517https://www.froggodgames.com/library/?q=forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media

While we don't know the exact details, we know it happened. and the matter being closed doesn't mean anyone has to buy their stuff. I think it's ridiculous to say it's unreasonable to not want to support a company based on the actions of someone in charge of that company. Nobody needs a reason not to buy a product in the first place, but that's a pretty good reason if you think you do need one.

He didn't sexually harass anybody. Stop fucking lying.

Quote from: Lurtch;1083523He didn't sexually harass anybody. Stop fucking lying.

They have been trying to expand the definition of harassment to single interactions. A guy asks a girl out and she says no, they want that to be harassment if she didn't enjoy the approach. So being hit on by a charming bad boy is not harassment but being hit on by an awkward nerd is.

I'm generally very sympathetic to concerns about sexual harassment and discrimination, in gaming and elsewhere, but I think TBP has lost its mind on this one. I just got thread banned for literally asking whether anyone had a link to some specific description of what happened because I wanted to understand that before spouting off along with everyone else.

More generally, this situation falls into a grey zone that no one likes to talk about in a straightforward way. As far as i can tell (based on third hand vague explanations) Webb committed sexual harassment, and the gossip is that he isn't sorry and might do it again. There are a group of people who I have no other reason to judge but that have made the ethical compromise to work in a company with this horse's ass as a CEO. And SJG has made a somewhat more nebulous ethical compromise of working with those people. And I've made a yet more nebulous ethical compromise of purchasing and generally supporting things SJG produces (and I intend to do so whenever their joint projects with FGG's comes out).

No one in this chain of events is doing an awesome job, but I'd like someone to explain to me how they have avoided making exactly the same sort of ethical compromises. Brian Singer (just to grab the first such thing that comes to mind) committed abusive sexual misconduct approximately 100,000,000x worse than Bill Webb. If you saw Bohemian Rhapsody or X-Men (as I have) then you paid him directly, supporting his power and misconduct. If you enjoy and pay to watch movies witth Hugh Jackman, Michael Fassbender, or Jennifer Lawrence in them then you (like me) support people who worked with him out of choice, therefore supporting his power and misconduct. All of this is completely voluntary on everyone's part, as Jennifer Lawrence isn't going to go broke if she skips a Brian Singer project, and no one is making me watch Fassbender movies. How is this any different (other than being worse)? Who out there would like to offer themselves as an example of someone who hasn't made this sort of ethical compromise? It is part of living in a world where human beings commit crimes against one another yet remain part of society.

I find it very annoying that the loud asshole Puritans are, broadly speaking, on the left at the present moment.  That's just fucking wrong, they're supposed to be right-wing assholes.  We're so goddamn transgressive nowadays we're transgressing transgression.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1083527I'm generally very sympathetic to concerns about sexual harassment and discrimination, in gaming and elsewhere, but I think TBP has lost its mind on this one. I just got thread banned for literally asking whether anyone had a link to some specific description of what happened because I wanted to understand that before spouting off along with everyone else.

   You violated RPGNet Unwritten Rule #2: Questioning the account of victims or the judgment of the Mob is by default evidence of bad faith.

   (Rule #1? Thou Shalt Not Dispute or Question the Mods.)

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1083530I find it very annoying that the loud asshole Puritans are, broadly speaking, on the left at the present moment.  That's just fucking wrong, they're supposed to be right-wing assholes.  We're so goddamn transgressive nowadays we're transgressing transgression.

I'm convinced a lot of these attitudes are innate and temperamental. Some people are just really freaked out by liberal, hedonistic, or individualistic behaviour. 60 years ago, people with that mentality would gravitate towards social conservatism as a way to allay their anxiety and enforce conformity through shaming. Today, people with that same mindset gravitate to the left. Basically, whichever group seems intent on enforcing social norms will attract the pearl-clutchers. Today, that's the left.

This was clear as day when I posted in a thread on BGG about social etiquette at gaming conventions. I put forward what seemed to me an uncontroversial observation that anywhere young, healthy, single people gather in numbers, some of the attendees are likely to have an interest in hooking up, or at least flirting and seeing where it goes. You see this at everything from softball tournaments and music festivals, to backpacker hostels and professional conventions. The notion this might be true at gaming conventions was met with much fainting and clutching of pearls. The giveaway of the mentality of these losers was when everyone assumed that it could only be men who would engage is such crass, disgusting behaviour. These people would fit right in with the Harper Valley PTA.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1083531You violated RPGNet Unwritten Rule #2: Questioning the account of victims or the judgment of the Mob is by default evidence of bad faith.

   (Rule #1? Thou Shalt Not Dispute or Question the Mods.)

I love how these kooks had to invent a new word, "sealioning", to vilify the very act of challenging their assertions.

Quote from: asron819;1083517https://www.froggodgames.com/library/?q=forum/response-frog-god-games-events-social-media

While we don't know the exact details, we know it happened. and the matter being closed doesn't mean anyone has to buy their stuff. I think it's ridiculous to say it's unreasonable to not want to support a company based on the actions of someone in charge of that company. Nobody needs a reason not to buy a product in the first place, but that's a pretty good reason if you think you do need one.

I think there are a few problems with Stacy's approach.

1. The victim of Bill's action had asked that the matter be closed. Personally I disagree with that approach, and would have had Bill's ass thrown in jail if that was an option, not giving a damn about his kids. The kids could have been picked up by Social Services for all I would have cared. They don't get to be a shield for Bill, and it's Bill's job to be concerned about how his actions affects his kids not anyone else's. However, I wasn't the victim, and I think I should respect the victim's wishes. (If Bill is somehow reading this, perhaps he can reflect just how damn close he came to having his family life seriously wrecked by this incident he caused.)

2. By going after anyone that has a relationship with Frog God Games Stacy is approaching this more like a religious purity test. Frog God Games is "unclean" in her mind, therefore anyone having contact with them is also unclean. This can lead to some manipulative cult-like bullshit. Almost any group of people is going to have at least one member who will do something that someone else could consider unclean. If you go along with this kind of thinking you're opening yourself up to being manipulated to turning against anyone the wannabe mob leader next declares unclean.

2a. I think this manipulation can be seen with Stacy's escalations. First her target was that Bill was a special guest at GaryCon. When Bill withdrew as a special guest at GaryCon did she declare victory since she seemed to think this would mean that Bill would not attend GaryCon, and therefore be safe for women? No, in an act of manipulation she then castigated GaryCon for not banning Bill from GaryCon before Bill took the initiative himself to not be a special guest. She demanded genuflection from GaryCon on this matter. Now, in a further manipulation she is going after anyone convenient (Steve Jackson Games, but not Paizo) who has a connection with Frog God Games.

2b. This approach seems impractical on its face, unless the goal is one of manipulation and fund-raising. If one took this approach to it's logical conclusion then there'd be very little gaming available unless it came from Stacy's curated list of approved fun. Imagine taking this approach to a company like Tyson Foods. Maybe Tyson Foods has pissed you off for some reason and you decide to boycott Tyson Foods. First, you stop buying their product at the grocery store. Then you realize they supply several restaurants such as KFC, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc. You decide to not only not buy the chicken products at those restaurants, but to not go to them at all. Then you realize those restaurants are at stadiums, so because those stadiums are doing business with Tyson Foods via the restaurants do you boycott stadium events, whether sports or concerts? You do if someone like Stacy tells you to in order to be a good ally, and you do want to be a good ally, right? Never mind the grocery stores you'd be limited to. Logically extending the boycott past the initial offender gets more and more impractical, but doing so does provide the leader of the boycott plenty of targets to aim the mob of allies at, picking at them one by one looking for a weak target to capitulate. Preferably the capitulation would involve some sort of financial support to Contessa as penance to show their true contrition, and not just a change of behavior.

(Note, I'm not trying to pile on to religion with my analogies, but SJWs strike me as a secular religion using many of the same forms as traditional religion.)

I don't have an issue if someone wants to boycott Bill Webb or Frog God Games themselves. I've bought a few FGG Products over the years, but not much, so even if I wanted to declare I was boycotting FGG it would be of no effect except to be pounding my chest at what a "good person" I was. Trying to extend any such boycott beyond that is manipulation in my opinion, probably in an attempt at a shakedown. For Stacy to bring this up years after the incident, after the victim stated she wanted the matter closed, and when she wasn't even involved stinks of someone trying to leverage the incident for their own gain. Every other posting/tweet she sends is about sending her money, why are people sending Wil Wheaton money when they could send that money to her, how hard it is for her to be bravely fighting for her own causes (so she really deserves some patronage), etc. She intersperses that with occasional practical messages on being a gm, or shout outs to others shilling for more money without engaging with what the others are actually doing...probably hoping for them to give her Patreon a shout out as well.

And now I realize I should add TotalCon to the list of Stacy's targets as well.

Updated list of Stacy's targets. I'm conflicted as to whether to suggest this gets posted and updated as a separate topic so that people can remain aware of her manipulations. Maybe the targets could share notes on how they dealt with her threats, but she'd probably take that as an example of the Patriarchy conspiring to keep marginalized people out of gaming instead of a means to help protect themselves from manipulative people. I've left off some individuals because I don't think some of the individuals want to gets dragged into this. This list also isn't meant to be a statement about innocence or culpability. (The SJW standards change so fast that nobody will ever be truly innocent by their standards at least given time.) It's a list of how many members of the gaming culture she's decided to go after in just 2-3 years. I expect there will be a couple more by the end of this year.

Stacy's Targets:

• Evil Hat Games
• Frog God Games
• Tenkar's Tavern
• Lamentations of the Flame Princess
• The Diana Jones Award
• Gary Con
• Bundle of Holding
• Steve Jackson Games
• Total Con

Wmarshal,

Bill Webb didn't do anything worthy of being arrested and/or prosecuted. Did you notice the "victim" never said what he did? They just lie and imply. He didn't harass her. He made a drunken pass and she rejected him. He didn't stalk her. He doesn't have a history or track record of doing these things at other conventions.

Stop fucking lying and implying! Show the receipts or shut the fuck up!

Quote from: wmarshal;1083538Stacy's Targets:

• Evil Hat Games
• Frog God Games
• Tenkar's Tavern
• Lamentations of the Flame Princess
• The Diana Jones Award
• Gary Con
• Bundle of Holding
• Steve Jackson Games
• Total Con

I thought Evil Hat was SJW (?)
What did Bundle of Holding do?

Phil Reed was kind enough to post a few responses in TBP's thread. Immediately got jumped on, for entirely reasonable statements that imply SJG actually know what happened (because they talked to the people involved directly) versus mad ramblings, accusations and gossip from the brain-melted. These people really are mentally fucking ill, aren't they?

I love that it's blown up from "something vague that may have happened that the alleged victims consider resolved/closed and which were never reported to the police or addressed through legal action in any form" to "SJG is actively saying half of humanity should be raped and Bill Webb is a violent alcoholic who goes to cons and beats the shit out of women (after molesting and raping them, and he still does it at every con he goes to according to ["reports"?])" since the thread started.

Oh, and that trauma victims will now somehow be damaged by the act of playing ANY SJG product, and any possible joy has been sucked out of all their games. "SJG did it, they somehow remotely broke my toys!"

What a fucking trip. Truly, they're living in their own fantasy. You might even call it some sort of a "fantasy trip."

The really stupid thing about my supposed 'sealioning' is I suspect I more or less agree with these dip shits, I just literally don't understand what we are talking about and wanted to see something clear and uncoded before adding my own blather to the general chaos. Are we trying to judge an appropriate response to a verbal harassment, or a physical assault, or a rape? Was the other person mentioned in the third-party reports injured or just jostled and mad? None of this amounts to excusing anyone for anything, but you do have to understand what someone did before you decide whether the right response is to cut off their head. This whole thing is just enormously childish. We have to find some way of dealing with the fact that some percentage of the people in any large community have committed crimes and should be called out for it, yet are still among us and interact with us directly and indirectly in various ways.

I've tried to stay away from RPGnet for the last year or so.  Sadly, this thread sucked me in and at least reminds me why I don't go there anymore.  I've never seen such a bunch of whiny jackasses in my life and that includes grade school.  What the fuck is wrong with them?  Is one of them the reincarnation of Savonarola?

"You must conform to my exact beliefs with no exceptions and make your decisions at the spur of a moment based on a whim and never ask any questions!" seems like a piss-poor basic philosophy to me.

Besides being mentally ill. Many of the fully woke jokers over at rpg.net should not and never be allowed to run any company. They would lose every penny they owned and their workers out on the street jobless due to moral outrage on their part. It's not as simply as SJgames severing ties with FGG.

Nor do many of them have any meaningful lives imo. If their that heavily emotionally invested in something other than friends or family they ain't all their in the head