Quote from: Shasarak on April 07, 2021, 04:44:55 PM

Well that explains a lot.  No wonder you imagine that Jordan Peterson would be against gathering with your friends to fight Dragons.

Of course, he might see roleplaying games as being in the "petting cats" category, too. I dunno.

Quote from: Valatar on April 07, 2021, 03:18:17 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 02:28:59 PM

This was my reaction as well. I know nothing about the people involved with this. I get there are some gender and sexual preference complications with parsing the series of events. But the bottom line is two consenting adults had a relationship which didn't work out. Everyone went into the relationship knowing the basic score on who was otherwise attached to whom and made a choice to pursue a relationship in those circumstances anyway. And it just didn't work out and pretty ordinary relationship-level fibs were told before it all blew up in pretty stereotypical ways.

The issue, as far as ethical considerations go, is that Hill was this woman's boss.  And was apparently trying to pressure the wife into accepting a side piece, while said side piece was thinking she was going to get equal billing with the wife.  Aside from that, yes, it does involve a bunch of adults who were not breaking laws.

I know the allegation is one was the boss of the other, but I am not finding confirmation of that anywhere? Are you sure it wasn't just a contractor relationship, business-wise, or are you sure it was an employer/employee relationship?

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 05:50:58 PM
I know the allegation is one was the boss of the other, but I am not finding confirmation of that anywhere? Are you sure it wasn't just a contractor relationship, business-wise, or are you sure it was an employer/employee relationship?

From the first post:

QuoteBut i can tell you that for a time i was really fucking scared of things not working out between the three of us because there was work involved. Money. Money I could depend on. Luckily i have commissions going on now that i can say that is not a.concern anymore.

hope that helped

Quote from: ScytheSong on April 07, 2021, 05:23:16 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 07, 2021, 04:44:55 PM

Well that explains a lot.  No wonder you imagine that Jordan Peterson would be against gathering with your friends to fight Dragons.

Of course, he might see roleplaying games as being in the "petting cats" category, too. I dunno.

That fits your train of logic I guess.

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 05:50:58 PMI know the allegation is one was the boss of the other, but I am not finding confirmation of that anywhere? Are you sure it wasn't just a contractor relationship, business-wise, or are you sure it was an employer/employee relationship?

I'm not sure if there's a meaningful ethical distinction between the two, in this context. Once one person's income depends on satisfying the contractual requirements of the other, introducing any sexual intimacy into that relationship runs the twin risks of either subordinating the sexual relationship to the contractual one (which makes the intimacy itself into essentially a mode of prostitution) or subordinating the contractual relationship to the sexual one (which makes it incredibly easy for one partner to exploit the other economically).

When that sexual relationship itself is further established by explicitly waiving the normal reinforcement and protection of exclusivity, that only increases the general instability and unreliability of the whole situation. Non-exclusive polyamory usually makes the mistake of assuming that all partners involved can and will maintain a fixed emotional state about their arrangement, and that any change in emotional state requires changes to the arrangement. This is not a recipe for commitment and security.

Quote from: ScytheSong on April 07, 2021, 06:05:42 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 05:50:58 PM
I know the allegation is one was the boss of the other, but I am not finding confirmation of that anywhere? Are you sure it wasn't just a contractor relationship, business-wise, or are you sure it was an employer/employee relationship?

From the first post:

QuoteBut i can tell you that for a time i was really fucking scared of things not working out between the three of us because there was work involved. Money. Money I could depend on. Luckily i have commissions going on now that i can say that is not a.concern anymore.

Right. That's not "employed" it's just "work involved. Money."

Given they're in Chile and the company is in the U.S., and they're normally a graphic design contractor, and they even mention they have commissions elsewhere, I strongly suspect this was not a Boss/Employee relationship but rather a contractor/contractee relationship. Which, to me, is meaningfully different. As a contractor, you're running your own business and it's a business-to-business relationship.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 07, 2021, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 05:50:58 PMI know the allegation is one was the boss of the other, but I am not finding confirmation of that anywhere? Are you sure it wasn't just a contractor relationship, business-wise, or are you sure it was an employer/employee relationship?

I'm not sure if there's a meaningful ethical distinction between the two, in this context. Once one person's income depends on satisfying the contractual requirements of the other, introducing any sexual intimacy into that relationship runs the twin risks of either subordinating the sexual relationship to the contractual one (which makes the intimacy itself into essentially a mode of prostitution) or subordinating the contractual relationship to the sexual one (which makes it incredibly easy for one partner to exploit the other economically).

When that sexual relationship itself is further established by explicitly waiving the normal reinforcement and protection of exclusivity, that only increases the general instability and unreliability of the whole situation. Non-exclusive polyamory usually makes the mistake of assuming that all partners involved can and will maintain a fixed emotional state about their arrangement, and that any change in emotional state requires changes to the arrangement. This is not a recipe for commitment and security.

To me, it's a very meaningful difference. Each is a business. Each is choosing to do business with another business. But it's not an exclusive business relationship (and this person even says they have commissions existing from other clients). They were not even in the same nation apparently. I do not see any way this is covered by the various sexual harassment rules or laws with regard to the power relationship between a boss and a subordinate.

Games were better back when we didn't know or care who the designers were much less their personal life details. 

Trying...to...care...

UUUNNNNHH!

Nope.  Can't do it.

Quote from: Hakdov on April 07, 2021, 09:44:30 PM
Games were better back when we didn't know or care who the designers were much less their personal life details.

I mean sure but be real how many people here were playing iHunt.

If your rent money is coming from a person, and they say, 'Hey, you wanna get dinner Friday?', I'm skeptical whether you technically being a contractor significantly alters the problem, even if it may change matters from a purely legal perspective.  While she seems to have other clients now, she must not have at the time, or else she wouldn't have mentioned worrying about the monetary repercussions.  I've done contracting work, and there were times where I would have been completely hosed if a large client had up and pulled the plug suddenly.

Quote from: Mistwell on April 07, 2021, 06:55:45 PMI do not see any way this is covered by the various sexual harassment rules or laws with regard to the power relationship between a boss and a subordinate.

This particular situation isn't about harassment. Harassment occurs when one party is trying repeatedly to establish a sexual, or at the very least a sexualized, relationship with the other despite explicit rebuffing. In this case the relationship between the two primary actors began with mutual consent; my point is that that consent in itself doesn't automatically make it ethical.

For one thing, as noted in the original story, Hill was already committed and did not initially have any permission at all to seek outside activity, and enabling someone else's infidelity is still unethical, if not quite as bad as committing it oneself. For another, while sexual and economic relationships can coexist ethically between the same people, it generally requires explicit and formal commitments to achieve; when the topic deliberately goes unaddressed, it creates ambiguities and uncertainties that, even if not consciously exploited, can nonetheless undermine the relationship. (Consider, if nothing else, that asking someone about money he owes you can be a lot more fraught if you're already sleeping with him.)

The simple rules "Don't sleep with someone already involved with someone else", "Don't sleep with someone who owes you money unless you absolutely don't care about getting the money", and "Don't sleep with someone who isn't free and willing to commit their life to being your exclusive partner" would have prevented all the chaos outlined in the original post. That basic chastity covers all this is no coincidence.

Quote from: Hakdov on April 07, 2021, 09:44:30 PM
Games were better back when we didn't know or care who the designers were much less their personal life details.

Social media has warped many people's common sense so badly, I doubt the damage to society will ever be repairable.  It certainly hasn't helped the RPG hobby at all: just ends up with tribal mentality led by whomever shouts the loudest.

If people had the reserve to not feel compelled to publicly post private details of their lives, a lot of things would be a lot better.  Now every story is a drama for an empty theatre:  the actors on stage just don't realise it yet with the lights shining in their eyes.

<sp>

Quote from: Reckall on April 06, 2021, 07:15:26 PMEach one of them was different but they all shared a key commonality: Not one of them ever made me think "Hey! The World must just know about this private brouhaha of mine!"

Did I ever tell you about this girl I dated whose nickname was Moose?

But yes: monogamy. Settle down with one person, treat them decently. Yes, it'd be fun to fuck other people. No, it's never worth it. Keep it in your pants.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 08, 2021, 02:10:37 AM
But yes: monogamy. Settle down with one person, treat them decently. Yes, it'd be fun to fuck other people. No, it's never worth it. Keep it in your pants.

QFT, as they used to say on the internet.