But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
I was thinking about this today and what about expanding the requirements to having to register as a sex offender?
Oof, I dunno man. The sex offender system has already created a caste of unemployable homeless people. Which means we're still pushing these people off for "someone else" to think about, only in this case it's the least powerful people and most easily exploited group of people in the world that we're pushing them off to, ie other homeless people.
Besides that, making that registry more inclusive weakens its ability to actually guard us against the pedophiles and rapists that it's meant for. In some ways it's already too inclusive (girls who spread nudes of themselves have been put on that list!) so maybe some separate list just for abusers, but not the sex offender list.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
The problem is that if all we have is public shaming, and we're unwilling to come up with any sort system that deals with offenders, then the only people we're protecting are the ones vicitimized by celebrities or people in specific industries that the rest of us find interesting (games, comics, cartoons). Most people do not have a twitter following to leverage into finding justice. Most abusers do not have a twitter account we can all tweet at.
And purely from selfish reasons, I don't want to have to CARE about every crime that is committed just like I rarely need to care about a random person getting mugged. I know a system is in place to deal with those issues as best we can. (and yes all systems need improvement.)
Ok so like. Tell me what system you have in mind, and how it would work. I'm listening and am open minded.
I would like harassment laws to be strong enough that a person in a workplace being harassed doesn't need to go to HR. They file a police report. It could be similar to asking for a restraining order. A judge reviews the evidence and makes a decision. The company can fire the abuser to just move them away as is required by the law.
Similarly we can have legal language protecting the victim from retaliatory action from the company.
I don't want to rely on a company to make the right choices.
Edit: And I KNOW that the police are terrible and don't believe rape victims. Obviously this needs fixing as well.
So, you're arguing for criminalization of workplace harassment. This would be problematic for a number of reasons, from Constitutional issues (criminalizing verbal harassment would be an uphill slog) to legal ramifications (what if the court rules there was no harassment? They could then be legally bound from acting in any manner with regards to the harasser.)
Certainly you'd need to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. Single acts of legal verbal abuse probably wouldn't ever meet the definition of a crime. Civil courts are also an option here. Laws can be created with an understanding of what an abuse of power is. Currently they seem focused more on threats of violence.
As far as what if the court rules there was no harassment? Well, what if the court rules that a murderer is not guilty? This happens every day and you won't see it as a trending topic on twitter. That's because we have faith that our justice system is doing the best it can.
If we want to actually make workplaces more safe, it'll take more than retweeting the 12 most popular abuse victims of the month. The country is far too big for that.
Not everything needs to be resolved in a court, sheesh.
So this is a less important issue to our society than say, shoplifting or jaywalking? That's not a dig. I want to know how much importance we should think this issue has. How much should I care about sexual workplace abuses of power?
Well, turn it around. What would you do about this guy:
"On the other hand, every couple of cons, there’s a fan who stands in my line with no book & silently hands me an envelope of photos he took of me with a telephoto lens at the last big con I went to.
I have been so hardened to this shit I barely thought it was weird. For years."
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
The problem is that if all we have is public shaming, and we're unwilling to come up with any sort system that deals with offenders, then the only people we're protecting are the ones vicitimized by celebrities or people in specific industries that the rest of us find interesting (games, comics, cartoons). Most people do not have a twitter following to leverage into finding justice. Most abusers do not have a twitter account we can all tweet at.
And purely from selfish reasons, I don't want to have to CARE about every crime that is committed just like I rarely need to care about a random person getting mugged. I know a system is in place to deal with those issues as best we can. (and yes all systems need improvement.)
Ok so like. Tell me what system you have in mind, and how it would work. I'm listening and am open minded.
I would like harassment laws to be strong enough that a person in a workplace being harassed doesn't need to go to HR. They file a police report. It could be similar to asking for a restraining order. A judge reviews the evidence and makes a decision. The company can fire the abuser to just move them away as is required by the law.
Similarly we can have legal language protecting the victim from retaliatory action from the company.
I don't want to rely on a company to make the right choices.
Edit: And I KNOW that the police are terrible and don't believe rape victims. Obviously this needs fixing as well.
So, you're arguing for criminalization of workplace harassment. This would be problematic for a number of reasons, from Constitutional issues (criminalizing verbal harassment would be an uphill slog) to legal ramifications (what if the court rules there was no harassment? They could then be legally bound from acting in any manner with regards to the harasser.)
Certainly you'd need to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. Single acts of legal verbal abuse probably wouldn't ever meet the definition of a crime. Civil courts are also an option here. Laws can be created with an understanding of what an abuse of power is. Currently they seem focused more on threats of violence.
As far as what if the court rules there was no harassment? Well, what if the court rules that a murderer is not guilty? This happens every day and you won't see it as a trending topic on twitter. That's because we have faith that our justice system is doing the best it can.
If we want to actually make workplaces more safe, it'll take more than retweeting the 12 most popular abuse victims of the month. The country is far too big for that.
Not everything needs to be resolved in a court, sheesh.
So this is a less important issue to our society than say, shoplifting or jaywalking? That's not a dig. I want to know how much importance we should think this issue has. How much should I care about sexual workplace abuses of power?
Well, turn it around. What would you do about this guy:
"On the other hand, every couple of cons, there’s a fan who stands in my line with no book & silently hands me an envelope of photos he took of me with a telephoto lens at the last big con I went to.
I have been so hardened to this shit I barely thought it was weird. For years."
Well, here's another big one. Ashraf Ismail, creative director of the upcoming Assassin's Creed Valhalla, is stepping down after a streamer said the two had been dating for a year before finding out Ismail is actually married.
The streamer went on to say that she's heard from 10 other women who went through her experience, some from within Ubisoft, and some from social media.
He was game director on Black Flag and Origins.
That doesn't really seem to fit into the whole 'sexual predator' category at all, though, unless there's more to it.
Cheating on your spouse should land you in somewhere between marriage counseling and divorce court but probably not cost you your career.
Neglecting to mention to a potential sex/romantic partner that you are married and cheating on your spouse violates consent, imho. Both because of the STD issue Cambiata mentioned, and because your new partner is now involved in an act (cheating) that they didn't know about and might have objected to.
Personally, I'd call it coerced sex and lump it in with things-that-may-or-may-not-be-rape-it's-complicated-but-in-any-case-they're-clearly-not-ok.
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
The problem is that if all we have is public shaming, and we're unwilling to come up with any sort system that deals with offenders, then the only people we're protecting are the ones vicitimized by celebrities or people in specific industries that the rest of us find interesting (games, comics, cartoons). Most people do not have a twitter following to leverage into finding justice. Most abusers do not have a twitter account we can all tweet at.
And purely from selfish reasons, I don't want to have to CARE about every crime that is committed just like I rarely need to care about a random person getting mugged. I know a system is in place to deal with those issues as best we can. (and yes all systems need improvement.)
Ok so like. Tell me what system you have in mind, and how it would work. I'm listening and am open minded.
I would like harassment laws to be strong enough that a person in a workplace being harassed doesn't need to go to HR. They file a police report. It could be similar to asking for a restraining order. A judge reviews the evidence and makes a decision. The company can fire the abuser to just move them away as is required by the law.
Similarly we can have legal language protecting the victim from retaliatory action from the company.
I don't want to rely on a company to make the right choices.
Edit: And I KNOW that the police are terrible and don't believe rape victims. Obviously this needs fixing as well.
So, you're arguing for criminalization of workplace harassment. This would be problematic for a number of reasons, from Constitutional issues (criminalizing verbal harassment would be an uphill slog) to legal ramifications (what if the court rules there was no harassment? They could then be legally bound from acting in any manner with regards to the harasser.)
Certainly you'd need to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. Single acts of legal verbal abuse probably wouldn't ever meet the definition of a crime. Civil courts are also an option here. Laws can be created with an understanding of what an abuse of power is. Currently they seem focused more on threats of violence.
As far as what if the court rules there was no harassment? Well, what if the court rules that a murderer is not guilty? This happens every day and you won't see it as a trending topic on twitter. That's because we have faith that our justice system is doing the best it can.
If we want to actually make workplaces more safe, it'll take more than retweeting the 12 most popular abuse victims of the month. The country is far too big for that.
Not everything needs to be resolved in a court, sheesh.
So this is a less important issue to our society than say, shoplifting or jaywalking? That's not a dig. I want to know how much importance we should think this issue has. How much should I care about sexual workplace abuses of power?
Well, turn it around. What would you do about this guy:
"On the other hand, every couple of cons, there’s a fan who stands in my line with no book & silently hands me an envelope of photos he took of me with a telephoto lens at the last big con I went to.
I have been so hardened to this shit I barely thought it was weird. For years."
Well, here's another big one. Ashraf Ismail, creative director of the upcoming Assassin's Creed Valhalla, is stepping down after a streamer said the two had been dating for a year before finding out Ismail is actually married.
The streamer went on to say that she's heard from 10 other women who went through her experience, some from within Ubisoft, and some from social media.
He was game director on Black Flag and Origins.
That doesn't really seem to fit into the whole 'sexual predator' category at all, though, unless there's more to it.
Cheating on your spouse should land you in somewhere between marriage counseling and divorce court but probably not cost you your career.
Neglecting to mention to a potential sex/romantic partner that you are married and cheating on your spouse violates consent, imho. Both because of the STD issue Cambiata mentioned, and because your new partner is now involved in an act (cheating) that they didn't know about and might have objected to.
Personally, I'd call it coerced sex and lump it in with things-that-may-or-may-not-be-rape-it's-complicated-but-in-any-case-they're-clearly-not-ok.
Is marriage necessary or would you place any sort of cheating where one person is un-aware in the same complicated-bucket?
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
I was thinking about this today and what about expanding the requirements to having to register as a sex offender?
Oof, I dunno man. The sex offender system has already created a caste of unemployable homeless people. Which means we're still pushing these people off for "someone else" to think about, only in this case it's the least powerful people and most easily exploited group of people in the world that we're pushing them off to, ie other homeless people.
Besides that, making that registry more inclusive weakens its ability to actually guard us against the pedophiles and rapists that it's meant for. In some ways it's already too inclusive (girls who spread nudes of themselves have been put on that list!) so maybe some separate list just for abusers, but not the sex offender list.
Hmm. Ya maybe a separate thing. Also sadder now because didn't know how much fucked up stuff had become of the current registry
Well, here's another big one. Ashraf Ismail, creative director of the upcoming Assassin's Creed Valhalla, is stepping down after a streamer said the two had been dating for a year before finding out Ismail is actually married.
The streamer went on to say that she's heard from 10 other women who went through her experience, some from within Ubisoft, and some from social media.
He was game director on Black Flag and Origins.
That doesn't really seem to fit into the whole 'sexual predator' category at all, though, unless there's more to it.
Cheating on your spouse should land you in somewhere between marriage counseling and divorce court but probably not cost you your career.
Neglecting to mention to a potential sex/romantic partner that you are married and cheating on your spouse violates consent, imho. Both because of the STD issue Cambiata mentioned, and because your new partner is now involved in an act (cheating) that they didn't know about and might have objected to.
Personally, I'd call it coerced sex and lump it in with things-that-may-or-may-not-be-rape-it's-complicated-but-in-any-case-they're-clearly-not-ok.
I think it's worth being very careful here. I had a longer post written, but I wanted to simplify. I think the action is heinous, but I'm really not comfortable putting it even in the category you listed above. I'd have to think more on it though.
Well, here's another big one. Ashraf Ismail, creative director of the upcoming Assassin's Creed Valhalla, is stepping down after a streamer said the two had been dating for a year before finding out Ismail is actually married.
The streamer went on to say that she's heard from 10 other women who went through her experience, some from within Ubisoft, and some from social media.
He was game director on Black Flag and Origins.
That doesn't really seem to fit into the whole 'sexual predator' category at all, though, unless there's more to it.
Cheating on your spouse should land you in somewhere between marriage counseling and divorce court but probably not cost you your career.
Neglecting to mention to a potential sex/romantic partner that you are married and cheating on your spouse violates consent, imho. Both because of the STD issue Cambiata mentioned, and because your new partner is now involved in an act (cheating) that they didn't know about and might have objected to.
Personally, I'd call it coerced sex and lump it in with things-that-may-or-may-not-be-rape-it's-complicated-but-in-any-case-they're-clearly-not-ok.
Is marriage necessary or would you place any sort of cheating where one person is un-aware in the same complicated-bucket?
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
I was thinking about this today and what about expanding the requirements to having to register as a sex offender?
Oof, I dunno man. The sex offender system has already created a caste of unemployable homeless people. Which means we're still pushing these people off for "someone else" to think about, only in this case it's the least powerful people and most easily exploited group of people in the world that we're pushing them off to, ie other homeless people.
Besides that, making that registry more inclusive weakens its ability to actually guard us against the pedophiles and rapists that it's meant for. In some ways it's already too inclusive (girls who spread nudes of themselves have been put on that list!) so maybe some separate list just for abusers, but not the sex offender list.
This speaks to the great difficulty of trying to change the system we have now to making it more official. I am generally a fan of the sex offender registry, but it has become abusive in some areas. The city, whose name I forget, legislates all of the sex offenders into one area of town without sufficient housing, and without safe housing. This includes teenagers who do stupid shit (legitimate stupid teenager shit like relationships just over the line of legality(18 and 16 as an example), or pictures of their appropriate and underage partners on their phones and not the predatory shit that is "boys will be boys") shows how unsustainable the system can easily become.
So there we have the heart of this problem. Any official measure will need to be draconian due to the severity of the crime, but also not so inflexible that edge cases can't get caught in it. I don't think the legal system is capable of such nuance. I think we as a society just have to try out best to protect the majority from the predatory minority. That means we don't have a clean timeline, and definitely means some people who have genuinely rehabilitated will likely face some consequences forever. I think part of rehabilitation necessarily has to involve being ok with the consequences of your actions echoing on in perpetuity. You see that awareness in people in recovery from addiction in my experience.
It may not feel fair, but fair is a word that is meaningless outside of games. We need to focus on what's right, what's equitable, and what is the best we can do.
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
The problem is that if all we have is public shaming, and we're unwilling to come up with any sort system that deals with offenders, then the only people we're protecting are the ones vicitimized by celebrities or people in specific industries that the rest of us find interesting (games, comics, cartoons). Most people do not have a twitter following to leverage into finding justice. Most abusers do not have a twitter account we can all tweet at.
And purely from selfish reasons, I don't want to have to CARE about every crime that is committed just like I rarely need to care about a random person getting mugged. I know a system is in place to deal with those issues as best we can. (and yes all systems need improvement.)
Ok so like. Tell me what system you have in mind, and how it would work. I'm listening and am open minded.
I would like harassment laws to be strong enough that a person in a workplace being harassed doesn't need to go to HR. They file a police report. It could be similar to asking for a restraining order. A judge reviews the evidence and makes a decision. The company can fire the abuser to just move them away as is required by the law.
Similarly we can have legal language protecting the victim from retaliatory action from the company.
I don't want to rely on a company to make the right choices.
Edit: And I KNOW that the police are terrible and don't believe rape victims. Obviously this needs fixing as well.
So, you're arguing for criminalization of workplace harassment. This would be problematic for a number of reasons, from Constitutional issues (criminalizing verbal harassment would be an uphill slog) to legal ramifications (what if the court rules there was no harassment? They could then be legally bound from acting in any manner with regards to the harasser.)
Certainly you'd need to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. Single acts of legal verbal abuse probably wouldn't ever meet the definition of a crime. Civil courts are also an option here. Laws can be created with an understanding of what an abuse of power is. Currently they seem focused more on threats of violence.
As far as what if the court rules there was no harassment? Well, what if the court rules that a murderer is not guilty? This happens every day and you won't see it as a trending topic on twitter. That's because we have faith that our justice system is doing the best it can.
If we want to actually make workplaces more safe, it'll take more than retweeting the 12 most popular abuse victims of the month. The country is far too big for that.
Not everything needs to be resolved in a court, sheesh.
So this is a less important issue to our society than say, shoplifting or jaywalking? That's not a dig. I want to know how much importance we should think this issue has. How much should I care about sexual workplace abuses of power?
Well, turn it around. What would you do about this guy:
"On the other hand, every couple of cons, there’s a fan who stands in my line with no book & silently hands me an envelope of photos he took of me with a telephoto lens at the last big con I went to.
I have been so hardened to this shit I barely thought it was weird. For years."
The artist (i assume an artist) probably has a really good case for stalking which you can get a restraining order for.
Which is only good in a single jurisdiction. This guy is, uh, infamous for this in a lot of places. So the out of court solution- the staff of various cons talking to each other and banning him from pretty much everywhere- ends up being much more effective. And as a bonus protects everyone rather than just a single person.
Phoenix-D on
+8
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Follow-ups in the replies. I love Cas Anvar. He's a massive part of why The Expanse TV show continues to exist, and he always acted like an ally.
That has been proven several times to not be a good measure of anything since abusers lie to get close to victims. Words are easy, actions are harder.
Abusers also groom people to defend them just as much as they groom victims.
What is grooming? Wining and dining until brainwashing occurs?
Psychological and emotional manipulation to condition someone to be more receptive to one's overtures. The usual framing is of a predator manipulating someone underage to be receptive to sexual overtures, but the concept is more broadly applicable.
It's the gross process of getting a foot in the door when someone is too young to know better, so that someday they can fuck them because they're manipulated in a way that makes it feel acceptable to them...
Sometimes they wait until the person is a legal adult, sometimes they don't. It's a gross way of investing in future-sex by being a creeper.
It's the gross process of getting a foot in the door when someone is too young to know better, so that someday they can fuck them because they're manipulated in a way that makes it feel acceptable to them...
Sometimes they wait until the person is a legal adult, sometimes they don't. It's a gross way of investing in future-sex by being a creeper.
But the thing is, I don't see anything we can do with those people. If you want to ask that question, then ask it of yourself and come up with an answer. For now all we have is public shaming on social media and even that is something people have said (in this very thread!) is wrong and bad to use. Abusers aren't signed members of a public program that we can defund to get rid of them. (though a lot of cops are domestic abusers, too, so maybe defunding the police is a good start!)
I was thinking about this today and what about expanding the requirements to having to register as a sex offender?
No.
Sex offender laws are super fucked-up on a whole host of levels.
Require offenders to get POOR IMPULSE CONTROL tattooed on their foreheads.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Like, we have the case of Adam Koebel.
What he did, he did on stream, in complete view of, i dunno, thousands? of people, leaving clear video evidence for everyone to see.
And we still had to argue on this thread if he acted abusively.
This was about as low stake situation you could have.
The guy has already been removed, the campaign suspended, people walked away from him.
And even with all of that, we still had to debate about it.
Now imagine someone lot more powerful, lot more famous, with loads of other powerful people shielding them because it is in their interests to do so.
Most importantly, he also did it in a situation that's arguably also a place of work - not just friends around a table. It's magnified into something so much worse than making a mistake or a player uncomfortable, because of how many people it happens in front of. Even so, I know if something like that happened when I'm working for a major company like Chaosium to DM for them at PAX, I wouldn't be invited back to do so again. Especially if I tried the hilarious excuse of blaming the game system and not my own inability to read my players discomfort as it happened.
It's the gross process of getting a foot in the door when someone is too young to know better, so that someday they can fuck them because they're manipulated in a way that makes it feel acceptable to them...
Sometimes they wait until the person is a legal adult, sometimes they don't. It's a gross way of investing in future-sex by being a creeper.
For a while I was tempted to see if I could get blocked by Drake for just replying with 'OK groomer' to every tweet of his.
Like, we have the case of Adam Koebel.
What he did, he did on stream, in complete view of, i dunno, thousands? of people, leaving clear video evidence for everyone to see.
And we still had to argue on this thread if he acted abusively.
This was about as low stake situation you could have.
The guy has already been removed, the campaign suspended, people walked away from him.
And even with all of that, we still had to debate about it.
Now imagine someone lot more powerful, lot more famous, with loads of other powerful people shielding them because it is in their interests to do so.
Most importantly, he also did it in a situation that's arguably also a place of work - not just friends around a table. It's magnified into something so much worse than making a mistake or a player uncomfortable, because of how many people it happens in front of. Even so, I know if something like that happened when I'm working for a major company like Chaosium to DM for them at PAX, I wouldn't be invited back to do so again. Especially if I tried the hilarious excuse of blaming the game system and not my own inability to read my players discomfort as it happened.
I want to hit some language here. It's not "arguably" and "also" a place of work. It is primarily a place of work. The staff all have contracts and/or are gig economy workers and this is what they do. Streaming is the victim's sole source of income.
Kotaku has released a story on all the shakeups in the Twitch streaming community. One part near the end stood out:
But this, as recent days have shown, is an industry wide issue. Game companies can’t continue to quietly empower abusers. Individual games have to crack down on harassment. YouTube has to crack down on harassment problems of its own, as well as YouTubers who send viewers to harass Twitch streamers. Brands need to vet the streamers they decide to partner with; they can’t just sweep prior indiscretions under the rug. These ecosystems overlap, and while some, like Twitch, do sometimes issue punishments to streamers based on off-platform misbehavior, all of these platforms ultimately need to overhaul how they approach abuse and harassment. As long as they continue to inconsistently enforce policies and tolerate harassment until the point that it impacts the bottom line, creators won’t be safe.
Natalie Casanova, one of the women accusing Tom Cassell, told Kotaku via Discord voice call that it’s time for fewer second chances and more zero tolerance policies: “I know it might take some getting used to, but what’s the outcome: Some people get mad for a little while, but then they have to start acting nice?”
Streamer Enviro thinks that Twitch needs to hire people who understand how power dynamics work on a structural level, and that if it doesn’t, the past will just keep repeating itself.
“I have a degree in public policy,” they said. “I understand how systems like this work and what policies need to be changed. We need more people who are educated in social and public policy involved in the background.”
“Twitch needs to police its partners and affiliates,” Enviro said, suggesting an anonymous reporting system specifically for harassment and abuse as one possible step in the right direction (Melrosee independently offered the same idea). “They need to do their due diligence in vetting character and promoting the voices that should be heard.”
I am very curious about how "due diligence in vetting character" would work in practice.
You don't just become a Twitch or YouTube partner, or obtain sponsors overnight. By the time that becomes a thing, most streamers have a year+ of content and public social interaction (chat, comments, etc.) under their belt. Enough of a record to start examining. Anonymous reporting tools combined with punishments for bad behavior would help, and should be part of the calculus too.
Most importantly, he also did it in a situation that's arguably also a place of work - not just friends around a table.
One thing that strikes me about a lot of the recent stuff coming out is that this whole "its a business but not really a business" around a lot of pro-gaming and streaming makes some of this very fraught. We've taken a bunch of social activities, monetized the performance of them often mid stream, and then are upset when people aren't following the rules of the office in their now live broadcast D&D sessions. *Shocked Pikachu*
Or take the Method situation.
Like what actual company would go "pay for one additional round trip ticket from Cali to Europe or pay for a Venice Beach AirBNB - with only 2 bedrooms- for a month, where the CEO, a female employee, and a random 3rd non employee will stay, until they are joined by the other CEO and the employee he is in a relationship with hmmmm Yeah both of those seem like okay ideas."
But it doesn't surprise me because you know where similar shit happened all the time, most the WoW guilds I was in - which is what Method actually is. A few of them could have passed as Jerry Springer with all the backstabbing, infidelity, attention seeking, maladjusted behavior. But no one cared. Yet throw in some twitch streaming revenue, and suddenly the secret channel where the 2 druids in their early 20s and a married 40 year old priest were carrying on a poly affair/relationship or the times when a certain -black- guild member is drunk and rapping on ventrillo with hard Rs, are now "HR problems" in this "business".
Looking at these things as "arguably also places of work" is the wrong view imo; They're more like bands. A bunch of independent creatives get together to make some stuff and also - abuse drugs, argue, fuck, fight, kick someone out, leave to go work on other projects, break up completely, go to rehab, publicly drag and sue each other a bunch, reunite, relapse, break up again.
I am very curious about how "due diligence in vetting character" would work in practice.
You don't just become a Twitch or YouTube partner, or obtain sponsors overnight. By the time that becomes a thing, most streamers have a year+ of content and public social interaction (chat, comments, etc.) under their belt. Enough of a record to start examining. Anonymous reporting tools combined with punishments for bad behavior would help, and should be part of the calculus too.
As far as I'm aware, the only two things that have occurred on-stream have been the RollPlay thing, and MethodJosh holding a fucking knife.
The vast majority of this stuff happens offline and in private. That is not something that is easy to track down when vetting someone.
The music industry has been needing to clean up its act for decades.
Music, sports, movies, gaming and so on. Different heads but the same hydra.
+9
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited June 2020
Some of the shit I've seen in WoW guilds wouldn't even make it to Jerry Springer, because no one would believe it. Jerry Springer worked (works?) because people can marginally see themselves in those situations. I've seen some shit in WoW guilds that, looking back, was horrifying behavior. You add all the interpersonal connection, relationship drama, first tastes of power, shy nerdiness and jussstttt a touch of anonymity. Hello toxic brew.
I am very curious about how "due diligence in vetting character" would work in practice.
You don't just become a Twitch or YouTube partner, or obtain sponsors overnight. By the time that becomes a thing, most streamers have a year+ of content and public social interaction (chat, comments, etc.) under their belt. Enough of a record to start examining. Anonymous reporting tools combined with punishments for bad behavior would help, and should be part of the calculus too.
As far as I'm aware, the only two things that have occurred on-stream have been the RollPlay thing, and MethodJosh holding a fucking knife.
The vast majority of this stuff happens offline and in private. That is not something that is easy to track down when vetting someone.
How thoroughly have you looked, though? There are certainly more cases. Take Guy Breahm filming inside a bathroom at a con and only being banned from Twitch for a few weeks, for example. It was a slap on the wrist and he remains one of Twitch's most viewed streamers. What kind of message does that send? Top-down policy that allows that to happen says, loud and clear, that this behavior is tolerated by the platform and will not be meaningfully punished. It's one place among many to target for improving things.
+7
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2020
I didn't know this, but Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is a domestic abuser. Apparently there is a long history of this that I was completely unaware of, but it's news now because the Something Awful forums are rebelling against him at this point.
I didn't know this, but Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is a domestic abuser. Apparently there is a long history of this that I was completely unaware of, but it's news now because the Something Awful forums are rebelling against him at this point.
The callout that seems to have started the ball rolling here
And some domesticabusereceiptsthat someone was good enough to save and put up on imgur for the doubters.
Edit: Ok there was also an update today from the mod who was assaulted.
Lowtax is a human piece of filth? Shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.
e: Reading deeper in to this his "estranged daughters". How can you be such garbage that you would let yourself be estranged from your children? Even the thought of being "estranged" from my daughter makes me feel like I'm trying to breath underwater. I acknowledge and accept it's best for his daughters, certainly, because we never know when the abuse would have turned on them....but if being estranged from your children isn't your wake up call to seek professional help and change you are probably broken beyond repair. I guess all his online names with "garbage" in them were self projection.
I am very curious about how "due diligence in vetting character" would work in practice.
You don't just become a Twitch or YouTube partner, or obtain sponsors overnight. By the time that becomes a thing, most streamers have a year+ of content and public social interaction (chat, comments, etc.) under their belt. Enough of a record to start examining. Anonymous reporting tools combined with punishments for bad behavior would help, and should be part of the calculus too.
As far as I'm aware, the only two things that have occurred on-stream have been the RollPlay thing, and MethodJosh holding a fucking knife.
The vast majority of this stuff happens offline and in private. That is not something that is easy to track down when vetting someone.
Which is where anonymous reporting comes in.
I mean... I'm not suggesting it's the solution. But neither the platforms nor the sponsors really do anything when it comes to this shit. Typically it's just a few temp bans, or, even if someone is outright banned from one platform, they just hop to another.
There needs to be some kind of first step, and this seems reasonable to me.
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
edited June 2020
Firstly, when I say "only two things" I'm referring to those from the batch of stuff I posted recently, not in total.
Secondly, there have in the past been cases of, for example, domestic violence shown on-stream, and from memory Twitch does follow that up with bans.
The incident with Breahm is his cameraman filming in the bathroom because they're an idiot, which is why Breahm got a temp ban from streaming and I think banned from E3. He apologised, explained the situation, and has not, to my knowledge, repeated it, so the question here falls under the discussion that's been going on for the last couple of pages about what consequences we want to see for harmful actions (though filming a toilet and sexual assault are not really comparable).
More generally, that response (edit: Tynann's) misses the point. It isn't the stuff that's on stream that's hard to vet. It's the stuff off-stream. You don't know someone's potentially an abuser until a claim is made. So what does the vetting process look like that finds those claims? How does it verify them? etc.
Posts
Oof, I dunno man. The sex offender system has already created a caste of unemployable homeless people. Which means we're still pushing these people off for "someone else" to think about, only in this case it's the least powerful people and most easily exploited group of people in the world that we're pushing them off to, ie other homeless people.
Besides that, making that registry more inclusive weakens its ability to actually guard us against the pedophiles and rapists that it's meant for. In some ways it's already too inclusive (girls who spread nudes of themselves have been put on that list!) so maybe some separate list just for abusers, but not the sex offender list.
Well, turn it around. What would you do about this guy:
"On the other hand, every couple of cons, there’s a fan who stands in my line with no book & silently hands me an envelope of photos he took of me with a telephoto lens at the last big con I went to.
I have been so hardened to this shit I barely thought it was weird. For years."
https://mobile.twitter.com/catvalente/status/1275855552934010880
(SFF author)
The scary/enraging part is that people know who this goose is, and yet nothing is done about him.
Neglecting to mention to a potential sex/romantic partner that you are married and cheating on your spouse violates consent, imho. Both because of the STD issue Cambiata mentioned, and because your new partner is now involved in an act (cheating) that they didn't know about and might have objected to.
Personally, I'd call it coerced sex and lump it in with things-that-may-or-may-not-be-rape-it's-complicated-but-in-any-case-they're-clearly-not-ok.
The artist (i assume an artist) probably has a really good case for stalking which you can get a restraining order for.
Is marriage necessary or would you place any sort of cheating where one person is un-aware in the same complicated-bucket?
Hmm. Ya maybe a separate thing. Also sadder now because didn't know how much fucked up stuff had become of the current registry
I think it's worth being very careful here. I had a longer post written, but I wanted to simplify. I think the action is heinous, but I'm really not comfortable putting it even in the category you listed above. I'd have to think more on it though.
Same bucket.
This speaks to the great difficulty of trying to change the system we have now to making it more official. I am generally a fan of the sex offender registry, but it has become abusive in some areas. The city, whose name I forget, legislates all of the sex offenders into one area of town without sufficient housing, and without safe housing. This includes teenagers who do stupid shit (legitimate stupid teenager shit like relationships just over the line of legality(18 and 16 as an example), or pictures of their appropriate and underage partners on their phones and not the predatory shit that is "boys will be boys") shows how unsustainable the system can easily become.
So there we have the heart of this problem. Any official measure will need to be draconian due to the severity of the crime, but also not so inflexible that edge cases can't get caught in it. I don't think the legal system is capable of such nuance. I think we as a society just have to try out best to protect the majority from the predatory minority. That means we don't have a clean timeline, and definitely means some people who have genuinely rehabilitated will likely face some consequences forever. I think part of rehabilitation necessarily has to involve being ok with the consequences of your actions echoing on in perpetuity. You see that awareness in people in recovery from addiction in my experience.
It may not feel fair, but fair is a word that is meaningless outside of games. We need to focus on what's right, what's equitable, and what is the best we can do.
Which is only good in a single jurisdiction. This guy is, uh, infamous for this in a lot of places. So the out of court solution- the staff of various cons talking to each other and banning him from pretty much everywhere- ends up being much more effective. And as a bonus protects everyone rather than just a single person.
Follow-ups in the replies. I love Cas Anvar. He's a massive part of why The Expanse TV show continues to exist, and he always acted like an ally.
That's a LOT of instant corroboration in the comments, yikes. Seems we had a missing stair here. Shithead.
The writers for the books are...not pleased.
On the other hand also these:
He'll be there for Season 5 baring major major shenanigans- it's done filming already- but.
That has been proven several times to not be a good measure of anything since abusers lie to get close to victims. Words are easy, actions are harder.
Abusers also groom people to defend them just as much as they groom victims.
What is grooming? Wining and dining until brainwashing occurs?
Psychological and emotional manipulation to condition someone to be more receptive to one's overtures. The usual framing is of a predator manipulating someone underage to be receptive to sexual overtures, but the concept is more broadly applicable.
Sometimes they wait until the person is a legal adult, sometimes they don't. It's a gross way of investing in future-sex by being a creeper.
Ok. I wasn't 100% sure because grooming pretty much meant exam prep and finishing school two decades ago and not
Require offenders to get POOR IMPULSE CONTROL tattooed on their foreheads.
Most importantly, he also did it in a situation that's arguably also a place of work - not just friends around a table. It's magnified into something so much worse than making a mistake or a player uncomfortable, because of how many people it happens in front of. Even so, I know if something like that happened when I'm working for a major company like Chaosium to DM for them at PAX, I wouldn't be invited back to do so again. Especially if I tried the hilarious excuse of blaming the game system and not my own inability to read my players discomfort as it happened.
For a while I was tempted to see if I could get blocked by Drake for just replying with 'OK groomer' to every tweet of his.
I want to hit some language here. It's not "arguably" and "also" a place of work. It is primarily a place of work. The staff all have contracts and/or are gig economy workers and this is what they do. Streaming is the victim's sole source of income.
Oh fuck GOD DAMMIT
YOU ASSHOLES JUST FUCKING
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You don't just become a Twitch or YouTube partner, or obtain sponsors overnight. By the time that becomes a thing, most streamers have a year+ of content and public social interaction (chat, comments, etc.) under their belt. Enough of a record to start examining. Anonymous reporting tools combined with punishments for bad behavior would help, and should be part of the calculus too.
One thing that strikes me about a lot of the recent stuff coming out is that this whole "its a business but not really a business" around a lot of pro-gaming and streaming makes some of this very fraught. We've taken a bunch of social activities, monetized the performance of them often mid stream, and then are upset when people aren't following the rules of the office in their now live broadcast D&D sessions. *Shocked Pikachu*
Or take the Method situation.
Like what actual company would go "pay for one additional round trip ticket from Cali to Europe or pay for a Venice Beach AirBNB - with only 2 bedrooms- for a month, where the CEO, a female employee, and a random 3rd non employee will stay, until they are joined by the other CEO and the employee he is in a relationship with hmmmm Yeah both of those seem like okay ideas."
But it doesn't surprise me because you know where similar shit happened all the time, most the WoW guilds I was in - which is what Method actually is. A few of them could have passed as Jerry Springer with all the backstabbing, infidelity, attention seeking, maladjusted behavior. But no one cared. Yet throw in some twitch streaming revenue, and suddenly the secret channel where the 2 druids in their early 20s and a married 40 year old priest were carrying on a poly affair/relationship or the times when a certain -black- guild member is drunk and rapping on ventrillo with hard Rs, are now "HR problems" in this "business".
Looking at these things as "arguably also places of work" is the wrong view imo; They're more like bands. A bunch of independent creatives get together to make some stuff and also - abuse drugs, argue, fuck, fight, kick someone out, leave to go work on other projects, break up completely, go to rehab, publicly drag and sue each other a bunch, reunite, relapse, break up again.
These streamers aren't EA, they're the Eagles.
The vast majority of this stuff happens offline and in private. That is not something that is easy to track down when vetting someone.
Music, sports, movies, gaming and so on. Different heads but the same hydra.
How thoroughly have you looked, though? There are certainly more cases. Take Guy Breahm filming inside a bathroom at a con and only being banned from Twitch for a few weeks, for example. It was a slap on the wrist and he remains one of Twitch's most viewed streamers. What kind of message does that send? Top-down policy that allows that to happen says, loud and clear, that this behavior is tolerated by the platform and will not be meaningfully punished. It's one place among many to target for improving things.
SA modpost https://forums.somethingawful.com/announcement.php?forumid=1here
The callout that seems to have started the ball rolling here
And some domestic abuse receipts that someone was good enough to save and put up on imgur for the doubters.
Edit: Ok there was also an update today from the mod who was assaulted.
Entertainment, basically.
Not that there is really an area that isn't broken.
Lowtax is a human piece of filth? Shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.
e: Reading deeper in to this his "estranged daughters". How can you be such garbage that you would let yourself be estranged from your children? Even the thought of being "estranged" from my daughter makes me feel like I'm trying to breath underwater. I acknowledge and accept it's best for his daughters, certainly, because we never know when the abuse would have turned on them....but if being estranged from your children isn't your wake up call to seek professional help and change you are probably broken beyond repair. I guess all his online names with "garbage" in them were self projection.
Which is where anonymous reporting comes in.
I mean... I'm not suggesting it's the solution. But neither the platforms nor the sponsors really do anything when it comes to this shit. Typically it's just a few temp bans, or, even if someone is outright banned from one platform, they just hop to another.
There needs to be some kind of first step, and this seems reasonable to me.
Secondly, there have in the past been cases of, for example, domestic violence shown on-stream, and from memory Twitch does follow that up with bans.
The incident with Breahm is his cameraman filming in the bathroom because they're an idiot, which is why Breahm got a temp ban from streaming and I think banned from E3. He apologised, explained the situation, and has not, to my knowledge, repeated it, so the question here falls under the discussion that's been going on for the last couple of pages about what consequences we want to see for harmful actions (though filming a toilet and sexual assault are not really comparable).
More generally, that response (edit: Tynann's) misses the point. It isn't the stuff that's on stream that's hard to vet. It's the stuff off-stream. You don't know someone's potentially an abuser until a claim is made. So what does the vetting process look like that finds those claims? How does it verify them? etc.