If you’ve ready any of the recent discussions on Google+, forums and elsewhere regarding harrassment at conventions, you will notice things have turned very toxic. It’a a bit like those discussion on the ethics of filesharing, in which positions have become so entrenced that nobody is interested in dialogue leading to mutual enlightenment, but in shouting down anyone that disagrees with them. You only have to look at the hostile reactions to this blog by Sarah Pinborough to see how things have spiralled.
Here’s my take on why the debate about harassment policies at gaming conventions has turned so toxic.
(1) Having a policy covering things like stalking and groping is a good thing provided it’s not too clumsily or vaguely-worded or gives a false impression that such harassment is more widespread than it is.
(2) Censorship of the actual content of games sold, displayed or played at the convention under the guise of a harassment policy is not a good thing.
(3) A lot of sensible and reasonable people are supporting John Scalzi’s initiative to make having a policy regarding (1) the expected standard for anyone running a convention.
(4) There is a small but very loud minority advocating (2), and they’re using misrepresentations, lies, ad-hominems and conclusions drawn more from dogma than evidence to justify this.
(5) The behaviour of (4) has created a backlash again harassment policies of any kind.
(6) In any internet debate it’s always the loudest and shrillest voices that get the most attention.
Does this make sense?
I think the people who actually want to censor free speech are no more common than the people who actually commit sexual harassment. Don’t exaggerate the problem about harassment; also don’t exaggerate the positions of people who are against harassment.
Why I refer you to point (6)…
The fact that such things do happen shouldn’t be an excuse to make them into a bludgeon, and the fact that they happen rarely shouldn’t be an excuse to minimize them.
One bone of contention is the sample code of conduct published by the Ada Initiative, which includes a clause that bans on “all sexualised material”, applying across the board to all presentations and attendees.
and
It’s intended to enforce professional behaviour at tech conferences, although it has generated controversy in that context. There is a movement demanding it be adopted for game conventions, specifically Gen Con.
I’ve seen at least one person insisting the clause about sexualised context must be retained (even though the Ada Inititive themselves state that it’s not appropriate for all contexts). It would have the effect, for example, of banning anyone from selling or playing “Chez Geek” because of the “Nookie” card. That’s serious mission creep.
I have no idea whether this attitude extends beyond a handful of individuals, or whether or not anyone else is taking them seriously.
Oh dear.
Not that I have ever read any, but does this mean that the Gor series of books must be outlawed?
I presume this means that whitemetal castings of female warriors in the legendary Leotard of AC-2 or the Bikini of AC-4 are also to be outlawed?
I remember promising the Student Union Funding Committee that the Games Society would not be buying those with the grant we were applying for, but they were in the catalogue and it was strange how the committee spent more time looking at that page than at the figures we did want to buy.
“Not that I have read any”
Funny, everyone says that…