[history of gaming] Confessions of a Dungeon Master

1235

Comments

  • edited February 2012
    @PeterBB

    This is how this thread started:

    (Luke Wheel)

    "It's amazing how he manages to fit everything that is wrong and bad about roleplaying games into his games and this article. "

    "Also, everyone is acting out, behaving like jerks to one another while he blithely and blandly presides over the situation"

    "I read two men bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances.

    Zak, I call the dwarf grabbing a woman's boob while the magic-user tries to do some legitimate research and the gnome going inviso-solo while the group tries to make a decision and the thieves stealing and killing everything in sight acting out and bad behavior.

    I read it as the author putting lipstick on a pig. "
    __________


    This is perceived as part of a larger "early gaming is about a dictatorial DM riding roughshod over players' in-game and metagame goals so we have to make indie games to avoid this kind of thing" story. Or as you would call it here "narrative".

    To put it simpler:

    Many people look at this and go: this is a DM asking someone what they want and it would be CRAZY for someone to be playing a game in a way they didn't want to with a DM they wouldn;t want to. The fact that this group existed and continued is powerful evidence everyone was cool with this game.

    Because they started with d&D and liked it and it went well.

    Many people here go ( is suspect) : there are many reasons I myself have played games I didn't want to play and so I can see how someone would keep playing in this clearly undesirable game.

    Because they started with D&D and didn't like it and it went poorly
  • @JDCorley

    The point is, you are accusing me of adding to the story in order to construct an innocuous version of it.,

    Your interpretation ALSO requires adding to the story the detail Cicely said "25%" even though she didn't want to.
  • @Zak: Interesting! I don't see that, but as someone who's never played D&D, I guess I'm not the target audience. :P
  • God, my life would be so much easier if I was the boss of textual interp. I'd pick the U.S. Constitution over Confessions of a Dungeon Master, though.
  • With great Boss comes great responsibility.

    Plus there's everyone messing with you as soon as they finish a level.
  • Posted By: Zak SYour interpretation ALSO requires adding to the story the detailCicely said "25%" even though she didn't want to.
    She didn't do it the first two times she was asked, only the third. I didn't add that!
  • @JDCorley

    Your interpretation requires "Note: she did not change her mind, she merely acquiesced to pressure". It's an interpolation.It is a guess.
  • Posted By: Zak SThis is perceived as part of a larger "early gaming is about a dictatorial DM riding roughshod over players' in-game and metagame goals so we have to make indie games to avoid this kind of thing" story. Or as you would call it here "narrative".
    Nobody in the world has ever said this, in any respect, ever.

    Not even Ron Edwards' weirdest essay said this.

    And that guy's a weirdo.
  • Posted By: Zak SYour interpretation requires "Note: she did not change her mind, she merely acquiesced to pressure". It's an interpolation.It is a guess.
    Wait, you don't think people change their minds under pressure? Or to avoid further pressure? Or...wait, this is weird, you're agreeing with me now?
  • edited February 2012
    @Zak: The more I think about it, the more I don't understand your claim. I've never played D&D, but I've certainly been in situations where I didn't want to leave, but had issues with some specific part of it. Like when I was in a ballet performance, and felt that they expected us to commit more time to it than was reasonable (or than was communicated when I signed up). Or when I did community theatre, and there was a girl who kept hitting on me in a way I found uncomfortable. Or like being the president of my college's BDSM club, where I feel like dominant men (like me) are given a little more deference than is actually deserved or comfortable for everyone. I think the existence of the game is a great reason to think there was more good than bad, but that doesn't mean there was zero bad.

    EDIT: Although I'm not sure it's even required that there's more good than bad. I broke up an Apples to Apples game the other day by saying, "Hey, if people are having fun, you should keep playing, but if not, feel free to do something else." Literally everyone would prefer to do something else, but the inertia of the game kept it from stopping.
  • @JDCorley

    You are assuming/interpolating that she changed her mind in response to pressure rather than because she made a decision to change her mind that was not a response to pressure. It was just "a person changes his or her mind" like happens once in a while. For a million internal reasons.

    You selected one possible reason she could've changed her mind and left a million unconsidered.
  • @PeterBB

    What claim are you referring to? I am totally lost as to what you are addressing. Quote me.
  • @Zak: Sorry! I was talking about:
    Many people look at this and go: this is a DM asking someone what they want and it would be CRAZY for someone to be playing a game in a way they didn't want to with a DM they wouldn;t want to. The fact that this group existed and continued is powerful evidence everyone was cool with this game.
  • @PeterBB

    That is not "my claim" . That is a popular perception held by other people. I said that at the beginning of my post.

    If I believed this (which I do not) I would be defending Holmes rather than maintaining what I keep reiterating: there is not enough information to judge the workings of this group.
  • Oh, man.

    I got really excited about two hundred posts back because I was hoping to have a discussion about:
    Posted By: Zak SA sizable chunk reacts as if Story-Games is a support group for people who were abused by Dungeons and Dragons as a child and any mention of how maybe some people enjoy orcbabykilling, PvP, pickpocketing, antisocial behavior etc, and that this enjoyment has nothing remotely suspicious about it etc etc
    Specifically, about the "orcbabykilling, PvP, pickpocketing, antisocial behaviour" style of play. I can see that there are people out there who really enjoy this style of play, and I want to learn more about it. I'd like to be able to do it, or do it better, and make it go well. I've seen it done right occasionally, but also seen it gone wrong the vast majority of the time, so thinking about how that ratio could be improved (or even just hearing about how some people can enjoy it all the time because of their own preferences, if that's not possible) would be simply awesome. What makes that kind of game rock, and how can we get more of it, while avoiding the possible problems?

    (I'm working on my own OSR-type old-school dungeon crawling game right now, so it's of particular interest to me.)

    If you're still reading this thread, and you have something to say about that, will you promise to have that discussion in the future, once this mess of a thread is over? I'd like that very much. I'll duck back out for now: I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.



    (Just for the record: I am probably considered by most to be a indie/hippie/story gamer/whatever, but I associate absolutely none of this discussion with D&D vs. newfangled games or otherwise. It just sounded to me like the situation described in the story was likely (but not certain, of course, we weren't there) to include some real awkwardness (or much worse) for Cicely as well as some of the other players.

    I don't see what the whole potential sexual harassment interpretation of this article has anything to do *at all* with D&D, or story game vs. the OSR, or any similar identity politics.)
  • edited February 2012
    Zak: Ah, I get it. Fair enough. :)

    What's the takeaway, for SG people? How can we best avoid alienating those people, without giving up on trying to talk about better or worse gaming experiences, which I think is one of the most useful things we do?
  • Posted By: Zak SYou are assuming/interpolating that she changed her mind in response to pressure rather than because she made a decision to change her mind that wasnota response to pressure. It was just "a person changes his or her mind" like happens once in a while. For a million internal reasons.

    You selected one possible reason she could've changed her mind and left a million unconsidered.
    I picked the one the article told me about? Like, not the one I invented, the one the article actually said happened?

    You remember the article, right, the one where she answered the question twice and still got the DM asking for her to try one more time?
  • Wow, the animosity seems to be getting pretty thick here.

    To Harper, JD, and others: Different people have different reactions to the text. I understand that you genuinely reacted to the text by feeling that the GM was acting like a jerk and/or bully. I read the same text and did not have the same reaction. The text seemed consistent with a fun, non-bullying game - though it also was potentially consistent with an annoying game, depending on the social circumstances.

    Part of the difference between our reactions may have to do with assumptions we make about what was happening at Holmes' gaming table.

    However, it also seems like it has to do with what we consider to be jerk-like behavior regardless of the larger context. It seems like some people are saying that regardless of circumstances, whatever the player declares about the character should be 100% accepted. So if the player declares that the character is a virgin, then it is inherently jerk-like behavior to suggest otherwise. Similarly if the player declares that the character is Hindu, or teetotaler, or any other background. However, I don't generally feel this way. I think it can be OK for others to say things about my character, even if it throws me off for a time.

    For example, in the last game of Fiasco I played (a few months ago at Big Bad Con), Leonard Balsera was also playing. I had a scene where my character told his daughter that he didn't smoke more than two joints of pot a day - but then Leonard threw in a scene that showed him smoking vastly more than that. So Leonard changed my character into a liar (to his daughter) and a drug abuser as opposed to a casual user. It threw me, and I wouldn't want it to happen all the time, but I rolled with it, and I don't think that he was being a jerk by that action.

    To PeterBB - I agree that people can put up with un-fun things in a game in general. However, I don't see anything in the description that says to me that this example was not fun. It might not be fun for you, and we have no way of knowing if it was fun for the players at the time. However, there are players who enjoy that.
  • edited February 2012
    @Paul T

    Advice: Read Monsters and Manuals, Jeff's Gameblog, Monster Manual Sewn from Pants, and JOESKYTHEDUNGEONBRAWLER's blog

    @PeterBB

    You want my advice on not alienating people?

    When someone says:

    "It can be pronounced to-may-tow or to-mah-tow depending on your group's preferences"

    and ANYONE on the forum (no matter how many games they've put out or edited or illustrated or reviewed) goes

    "it's obviously 'to-mah-to' and anyone saying 'to-may-tow' is just being willfully ignorant or trolling or nostalgic or ignoring the Very Real Problem or Hopelessly Gamist or has D&D Brain Damage or is an unwitting tool of the patriarchy or an egotist" then you realize that person is being a dick and, as a community, go "Hey, stop being a dick.".
  • Posted By: Paul T.Specifically, about the "orcbabykilling, PvP, pickpocketing, antisocial behaviour" style of play. I can see that there are people out there who really enjoy this style of play, and I want to learn more about it. I'd like to be able to do it, or do it better, and make it go well. I've seen it done right occasionally, but also seen it gone wrong the vast majority of the time, so thinking about how that ratio could be improved (or even just hearing about how some people can enjoy it all the time because of their own preferences, if that's not possible) would be simply awesome. What makes that kind of game rock, and how can we get more of it, while avoiding the possible problems?
    Paul, do you want to start a new thread about this topic? I'd love to put my two cents in separate from this thread.
  • @JDCorley

    Why do you insist that her third answer was a response to pressure rather than an internally considered changing of her own mind for reasons of her own?
  • @Paul T

    Oh, also, do not play with people you don't like.
  • Story Games: a place to sink threads
  • Posted By: Zak SWhy do you insist that her third answer was a response to pressure rather than an internally considered changing of her own mind for reasons of her own?
    I don't think those two things are always different, so why would I think either one? I don't know what was in her head? Or in anyone's head, all I know is what Holmes said happened.
  • @Zak: Interesting, I'll have to think about that. Thanks for the discussion! :)
  • Posted By: jhkimHowever, it also seems like it has to do with what we consider to be jerk-like behavior regardless of the larger context. It seems like some people are saying thatregardless of circumstances, whatever the player declares about the character should be 100% accepted.
    I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's the double standard that's at work here that's the problem - where it's 100 percent accepted when a player says "But I kept trying to sleep with her" and absolutely not accepted when a player says "But I didn't sleep with him".
  • @JDCorley

    Your interpretation is that she changed her mind in response to "pressure".

    Holmes didn't write that.

    You made that up.
  • OK, I'll start a new thread. I was going to wait until this one wound down, but I'll throw it up and see what happens.

    Zak, thanks for the blog referrals. I'll check them out. However, most of the posts are about (in my opinion) awesomeness of the old-school variety, like cool random tables and monsters and magical items and ways to run a campaign. I'd have to strain to remember too many discussions of this particular topic. If you have any specific stories to relate or advice to give (whether in person or by linking to a blog entry, particularly if it's something you've already written), I hope you'll consider jumping in! It would be fun to hear from you on this topic--my own browsing-various-blogs time is limited, and the communication in that context is one-sided.
    Posted By: Zak SOh, also, do not play with people you don't like.
    I don't! That's a good lesson to learn. But lots of people do, and often--particularly in smaller communities where the choice is often to play with the people you like PLUS one or two of the ones you don't like, or not to play at all.
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: Zak SYour interpretation is that she changed her mind in response to "pressure".
    But I didn't say that. You made that part up. How would I even know that? My only point during this whole thread has been about Holmes' behavior.
  • @JDCorley

    You rejected my interpretation of Holmes behavior.

    Holmes could easily have been acting in a way designed to limit the "table damage" done by Jackass while not erupting into a full-scale argument with him.

    Do you disagree with that? And, if so, why?

    And the old "You are adding that in": defense will not fly--you are "adding in" just as much if you assume he is being insensitive or sexually aggressive toward a player.
  • edited February 2012
    John,
    Posted By: jhkimThe text seemed consistent with a fun, non-bullying game
    Do you have anything to add about this? Like, what is the hypothetical fun, non-bullying version of this story that you're interpolating? Or is it just what we've discussed already? Zak posted a nice "alternative reading" scenario which I found very interesting, and was an angle I hadn't considered.

    When looking at this story, and whether it's a tale of good game or bad game, is there a specific element or two which would make all the difference? And, if so, can those elements be distilled into useful advice or play methods?

    That would be something useful from this thread, finally. And very welcome!

    EDIT: I think a lot of people *have* had bad experiences with this kind of play. (And probably the main reason we don't have similar numbers of people who have had bad experiences with Sorcerer or My Life with Master or whatever is because those games haven't been around as long, so it's not necessarily a dig at the play culture.) And so they will approach this kind of play style with hesitation and fear, and read actual play accounts with great skepticism. So discussing the positives of this playstyle would be tremendously useful for a lot of people.
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: Zak SAnd the old "You are adding that in": defense will not fly--you are "adding in" just as much if you assume he is being insensitive or sexually aggressive toward a player.
    I didn't say he was insensitive or sexually aggressive sooooooooo....

    You have some really weird ideas about what I've said!

    I never said anything like that and 100 percent of everyone reading the thread knows this.

    (Maybe you're still thinking of weird stuff in some Ron Edwards essay? That guy seems to get under a lot of people's skin! Remind me to tell you about the brain damage thing sometime. So frickin' hilarious, even now!)

    I said Holmes acted like a jerk when he applied a double standard to what Modesty said about her actions versus what Lothario said about his.

    Holmes was absolutely willing to accept Lothario's statement about what he did with his time. 100 percent. No question. No rolls. No argument. No "say that again". No "give me a percentage". Nothing. Lothario said "I tried to seduce her SO MUCH". And he said "yep, you did try to do that! Yes, definitely, that happened!!!!!"

    But for her statement about her actions? Oh no. We gotta have numbers, Cicely, we gotta roll those dice. You can't think of a number the first two times you announce your action? Well think harder, I'm asking you again. You don't know what you were doing, we need the dice for that. You could be doing anything. Anything!
  • edited February 2012
    @JDCorley

    Jackass' actions had actually been played during the previous games (he had been trying to seduce her during previous "sessions"--not "days") his attempt (not the success) occurred. It was at the table, it as not retroactive conjecture.

    There is no reason to assume if Cicely had said "I attempt..." (anything) the DM wouldn't have said "Ok, go attempt it".

    What was under discussion was whether his attempt succeeded (which is up to the dice or Cicely, had she said "0%")

    You are assuming a parallel which does not exist.

    A PC can attempt anything. Success is always in doubt if the matter is important and retroactive PC decisions are adjudicated differently than attempts (present tense).

    So your whole "double standard" thing lies on a false parallel.
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: Zak SJackass' actions had actually been played during the previous games (he had been tryong to seduce her during previous "sessions") hisattempt(not the success) occurred. It was at the table, it as not retroactive conjecture.
    Well, but the successful attempt would not have been one of those, yes?

    We are talking about something that they are debating happened off screen.

    I double-checked the article. I am right.

    He didn't say "Hm, Lothario, let's roll to see if you are still interested in her after being shot down as you were in the last session". He just assumes that what Lothario says about what he does is true. But he does not assume that for Modesty.
  • edited February 2012
    @JDCorley

    Session: Jackass hits on her

    Session: Jackass hits on her

    Session: Jackass hits on her

    Session: Unicorn.
    Virginity Question
    GM (heretofore, like almost everyone else, not interested in the hitting-on-Cicely situation now has to bring it up)
    Jackass:" I;ve been hitting on her, maybe she's not a virgin"
    Everyone else:" Duh, we know, this is the fourth day. What we don't know is how Cicely responds which has never been relevant until today..."
    GM: (does what I described back at post 160 or whatever)

    All of this is the GM doing his job right
  • edited February 2012
    Why would they not know how she responded? That is a weird assumption to make. It's nowhere in the article.

    Session: Attempted seduction. Failure.
    Session: Attempted seduction. Failure.
    Session: Attempted seduction. Failure.

    Unicorn session.

    "Hey, I'm pretty persistent, remember I've tried to seduce her a lot?"
    "True, true."
    "Welp, I said no."
    "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you said no."
  • @JDCorley

    Why would she have responded at all? Her sexual status is not relevant until the unicorn shows up.
  • What do you mean "why would she have responded?" Because she's roleplaying?
  • @JDCorley

    Are you saying this whole disagreement rests on the assumption that for 3 sessions she;d been actually responding to his hitting on her?

    Let me tell you if you do not know:

    It is very easy for a person to make sexual advances on another person in an RPG and the target of those advances says nothing. Happens a lot. Do you not believe me?

    And it is common (especially in D&D) for those things to not be particularly a focus of play until a unicorn shows up because it literally says in the Monster Manual that only a virgin can ride one.
  • Posted By: Zak SIt is very easy for a person to make sexual advances on another person in an RPG and the target of those advances says nothing. Happens a lot. Do you not believe me?
    Yes, but saying nothing isn't failing to respond. That's a refusal. Believe me, I know! I went to college and talked to lots of girls.
  • @JDCorley

    It's dangerous to tread on real-life sexual dynamic but:

    If you assume a girl who says nothing is thereby rejecting you, that is not necessarily a correct assumption.
  • edited February 2012
    At the very least it's the absence of assent, but the point is the double standard still exists.

    He's allowed to say he tries to sleep with her - 100 percent, no problem - and the first two times she tries to use the same power to say she tries not to sleep with him, nope, shot down. She has to put a percentage on it.
  • Posted By: Paul T.Posted By: jhkimThe text seemed consistent with a fun, non-bullying game
    Do you have anything to add about this? Like, what is the hypothetical fun, non-bullying version of this story that you're interpolating? Or is it just what we've discussed already? Zak posted a nice "alternative reading" scenario which I found very interesting, and was an angle I hadn't considered.

    When looking at this story, and whether it's a tale of good game or bad game, is there a specific element or two which would make all the difference? And, if so, can those elements be distilled into useful advice or play methods?

    That would be something useful from this thread, finally. And very welcome!

    EDIT: I think a lot of people *have* had bad experiences with this kind of play. (And probably the main reason we don't have similar numbers of people who have had bad experiences with Sorcerer or My Life with Master or whatever is because those games haven't been around as long, so it's not necessarily a dig at the play culture.) And so they will approach this kind of play style with hesitation and fear, and read actual play accounts with great skepticism. So discussing the positives of this playstyle would be tremendously useful for a lot of people.
    I've brought up a couple of other examples in this thread: like gunning down another PC at the end of a game, or Leonard's writing in details about my character during Fiasco. I just noticed another example as I was working on my report on attending DunDraCon 2012. At DunDraCon 2007, I played in an event My I Take Your Coat using All Flesh Must Be Eaten. As I put it,
    For me, there was a key bit in the introduction. At first, I had been picturing him as someone who fancies himself as a "man of the people" but is still full of upper-class priviledge and doesn't really understand. However, as he was arriving at the mansion, I improvised how he chatted up the butler, saying "So, James, how is your wife?" The GM responded with "I don't have a wife, sir, and my name is Sam."

    Now, in acting improv, that's a bit of a stumbling point. I accepted it, however, and at that point Jeremiah went from ignorant to being a complete hypocrit. It actually turned out interesting, because I played up his "good side" even more -- while in the end he turned out horribly evil.
    I think the point is that rather than getting stuck in a rut about what the character is "really" like, players can be looser and/or less serious with their characters. That bit from AFMBE really flipped my picture of the character, and it turned out to be fun playing the bad guy.

    More broadly, though, it seems like people have problems with the anti-social actions of the PCs. I don't play much D&D, but this seems a lot like games I've played of Paranoia, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and other games. Also, the campaign that I'm playing in now of Call of Cthulhu has just started shifted into more of the "shotguns and dynamite" approach as opposed to the "library research" approach. I'm not sure there is a clear way to express this. It's much like, say, playing hard to trick someone and take away their real-world money in a game of poker, but still enjoying the struggle either way and enjoying beer afterward. So my character shotguns down your character, but it's understood that this is just a part of the game. For me, one of the whole points of games is to break usual social norms. It makes for a much funner atmosphere if everyone is clear that this is just a game where characters will do things that the players don't.
  • edited February 2012
    So, I've been monitoring this thread through my working day with a certain amount of bogglement, and since people have been quoting me, I have some thoughts to share:

    - When do you guys sleep? Seriously? ;-)
    - Zak S, I'm sorry your friend didn't feel comfortable that she could sign in and speak for herself. I'm fairly new to this forum myself, and people have seemed pretty decent so far. That said, I think the most argumentative person in this thread so far has been you.
    - I don't think it's relevant whether Cicely the Naga was a fainting flower, "one of the boys", flirting, or planning to deck her soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend shortly after the game. Why should she have to put up with that crap? Or anyone?
    - Zak proposed a hypothesis of player motivations that painted Holmes as a Good Guy (TM) trying to smooth over a tricky situation. With respect, I think that while it's possible, it's not plausibly supported by the text: that whole article is about social dynamics in roleplaying and Holmes' own reaction to it (eg feeling sad when his players didn't notice cool stuff in his setting). If he'd felt he had to consciously manage player expectations in that incident, I think he would have made a point in mentioning it in a psychology article. (1) And he doesn't, he treats it like a joke.
    - Several other people have presented an alternate hypothesis that suggest there was harrassment. I think that this is supported by the text: Holmes describes both of his groups as using the roleplaying space to act out, fulfill wishes, and grief their team mates. He cites specific other examples of male player characters groping or raping female NPCs. He cites another example of a player becoming upset about griefing, and implies that it's not his problem to deal with as a GM. It's notable that the sexual harassment of NPCs is only described as happening to female characters. (2)
    - Someone else made a comment about conduct, how to handle something like this if it happened again? I think a really basic thing would be to challenge the boy who made a fiat assertion about someone else's character, rather than the girl who made a fiat assertion about her own. Or if it's outside of the normal vibe of the game, call a brief timeout and check people's assumptions.
    - PeterBB has made some very good points about 'rape culture' and yes, this culture is informing my opinion, and what I can read from Holmes' conduct. A saving throw is something you make to avoid damage, to not have to do something you don't want to do. And that got pushed on to the girl who'd raised objections rather than the boy who was challenging someone else's boundaries.

    Anyway, my two cents.

    (1) Because that's what people do when they're interested in game dynamics - they talk about it with real life examples, the same way I've seen people write examples about the effect the play space, provision of refreshments and sexual antics of their player group can have.
    (2) I'm curious - can someone with better knowledge of D&D history tell me when Dark Elves and that male bondage paradigm? That still has problematic elements but I'm wondering when it got introduced to the hobby.
  • edited February 2012
    @JDCorley

    I have already explained how that situation is not parallel.

    If it were parallel, Holmes goes: "Did you sleep with her?""Yes"
    "Did you sleep with him?""No."
    "Ok, I am going with Jackass"

    He went, in effect:
    "You are trying to convince her to sleep with you, right? Ok, you-- is your character going to resist his charm"
    "Yes"
    "How hard?"
    "Only 75%"

    @StephaniePegg

    Every single thing you listed is a "maybe" not a "definitely" and i feel extremely uncomfortable laying the very serious charge of sexual harassment on a "maybe" and I think it is disrespectful to do so.
  • The guy did not make a flat assertion about another player's character. He stated his attempted action.
  • OK, so can your point be summarised as: "the act of calling something sexual harassment is more serious than the act of being sexually harassed"?

    Because that's what it looks like you're saying, and that's not a point of view that I can respect. Even when it's Ifs and Maybes. Saying that it's such a serious charge that people shouldn't even consider it happening, shouldn't look objectively at the evidence as to whether it did happen, shouldn't talk about how to avoid it happening in the future? Dude, you get that that attitude is what protects real life predators, right?

    If nothing else, rewrite Pascal's Wager next time you encounter something like this: if there's something wrong and you didn't look into it, you enabled a bad thing to happen; if things looked a bit off but were fine and you spent a minute taking the time to be sure of that, there's no harm done to anyone.
  • @Zak: I think there's a disconnect on how we see the act of "accusing someone of sexual harassment". Obvious we both agree that it's a terrible thing, and that it should never happen. But in reality, it happens incredibly often. Go on any relatively large internet site where people (especially geeks) talk about things, and see what happens when a woman comes up under any context. Massive harassment-fest, pretty much 100% of the time. In real life, I witness sexual harassment pretty often, especially at parties. In my pre-feminist teen years, I myself did one or two things that I would now classify as harassment. So, yeah, I guess it is a serious accusation, but it's not like we're saying he's specially problematic, just that he's a relatively typical gamer.
  • @StephaniePegg

    If anyone in this thread were investigating this or trying to contact Cicely or anyone involved or gather additional facts I'd totally agree with you.

    But they're not. They're using her possible predicament to...I don't know "Prove to other people on a forum that they are good people?" I don't know.
This discussion has been closed.