TTRPG Awards ceremony Crit Awards removed from Gen Con due to backlash from Zionists

[Naijaboy]

So it's been no secret at this rate that the tabletop gaming industry has been blossoming as of yet with various people taking on various different gaming industries. Try as the likes of Wizards of the Coast might with throwing a wrench of things, the genre has never been more popular. So it was only a matter of time that some people would organize an awards ceremony for various people. It's called the CRIT Awards and it the winners were going to be announced at Gen Con, the largest tabletop convention in the United States.

Shortly before the nominees were announced, the organizers declared that they want all of their nominees to be inclusive of others. That means no racists, homophones, misogynistic, transphobes and the like. Sounds reasonable as that internet circle leans heavily into that mindset. The organizers also stated that Zionists (specifically people who refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli government or the illegal settlements in the West Bank) would also not be eligible as nominees. Again, that sounded reasonable.


View: https://twitter.com/crit_awards/status/1801754068773441586#m

Unfortunately, word of this reached certain groups of people and went on to harass the organizers as well as mail-bomb Gen Con for hosting the event. The news spread to a number of sites and even some Israeli sites. It got to the point that the organizers met with Gen Con organizers on how to resolve things. While Crit Awards organizers didn't state what was discussed, they decided that they would not host the awards in Gen Con.


View: https://twitter.com/crit_awards/status/1805397619835027501#m

Details on what went down were discussed with a bit more detail a few days later.


View: https://twitter.com/crit_awards/status/1806766319565713607#m

While the organizers themselves have not called for a boycott, a number of people have decided not to attend this year's convention. Note that there are other people who will be there under contractual obligations and can't back out from it.

As for the CRIT Awards itself, the nominees have been announced and you have until tomorrow, July 7th to vote.

CRIT Awards

The official website for the CRIT Awards, a TTRPG award show to celebrate and recognize those in the TTRPG community

www.critawards.org

I could only find one article that was unbiased talking about what happened.

CRIT Awards No Longer Attending GenCon 2024, Investigating Virtual Event Possibility | TechRaptor

In response to recent social media posts regarding their Code of Conduct, the CRIT Awards announce they will not be attending GenCon 2024.

techraptor.net

 

[Dyle]

Why in the world would you paint such an obvious target on your back? Of course you would be harassed for that. What did they think would happen?

 

[TheodoreXGolbez]

That sucks

 

[BarringGaffner]

The organizers also stated that Zionists (specifically people who refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli government or the illegal settlements in the West Bank) would also not be eligible as nominees. Again, that sounded reasonable.


View: https://twitter.com/crit_awards/status/1801754068773441586#m

Click to shrink...

where did they specify what you said here? Their tweet just says no zionists.

 

[Wrexis]

Why in the world would you paint such an obvious target on your back? Of course you would be harassed for that. What did they think would happen?

Click to shrink...

I would imagine that you have to be explicit or people will try and get away with stuff. "Well it's not in writing I can't be racist." etc.

 

[Volimar]

That additional statement is completely right. Though calling out Zionism as they and many others understand it to be made it pretty easy to target the initial statement because as a term Zionism has a half dozen different meanings depending on who you ask. The bad faith actors will twist the statement to mean something it doesn't and it snowballs from there. Might have saved a headache if they had said "individuals who are anti-Semitic or anti-Palestinian". Though let's face it, the shit heads would have found fault with that too.

 

[Daphne]

Why in the world would you paint such an obvious target on your back? Of course you would be harassed for that. What did they think would happen?

Click to shrink...

Excluding people from winning their awards who support what's happening in Gaza or the West Bank illegal settlements is simply the right thing to do. We need people who don't shy away from doing the right thing.
The people in the wrong here are the ones harassing and making bomb threats.

 

[m_shortpants]

Excluding people from winning their awards who support what's happening in Gaza or the West Bank illegal settlements is simply the right thing to do. We need people who don't shy away from doing the right thing.
The people in the wrong here are the ones harassing and making bomb threats.

Click to shrink...

Yup. There shouldn't be any middle ground here. At this point if you are still providing unwavering uncritical support for Israel, you are basically supporting war crimes and genocide.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Rowan as part of Rascal News did a great article that explains the situation: https://www.rascal.news/crit-awards-gen-con-cancelled/

 

[Dyle]

I would imagine that you have to be explicit or people will try and get away with stuff. "Well it's not in writing I can't be racist." etc.

Click to shrink...

If they wanted to be explicit they wouldn't have simply made the rule around one of the most nebulous and impossible to define terms in modern political discourse without any explanation about what it is intended to mean. It seems baffling to be informed enough to implement a rule like this while very clearly doing it incorrectly, well after dozens of other examples of this same thing happening to other award shows and arts events.

Excluding people from winning their awards who support what's happening in Gaza or the West Bank illegal settlements is simply the right thing to do. We need people who don't shy away from doing the right thing.
The people in the wrong here are the ones harassing and making bomb threats.

Click to shrink...

Obviously the harassers in the wrong. But using the word Zionism without context is an incredibly obvious mistake that allows people to fill in the blanks for themselves.

 

[Jonnax]

I don't understand why people use the word Zionism when criticising Israel.

There's too many religious meanings to it.

Israel is a state built on racial and religious supremacy and that's why they should be excluded.

 

[Thordinson]

where did they specify what you said here? Their tweet just says no zionists.

Click to shrink...

While folks can obviously hold contradictory views, Zionism kinda requires that the illegal settlements are not only legal but the West Bank become part of Israel proper. Hence why Zionists call it Judea and Sumaria instead.

If they wanted to be explicit they wouldn't have simply made the rule around one of the most nebulous and impossible to define terms in modern political discourse without any explanation about what it is intended to mean. It seems baffling to be informed enough to implement a rule like this while very clearly doing it incorrectly, well after dozens of other examples of this same thing happening to other award shows and arts events.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's nebulous or impossible to define.

 

[Dyle]

I don't think it's nebulous or impossible to define.

Click to shrink...

Ask the people who have been attacked or labeled as Zionist because of their identity, not their political position, if they agree

 

[Thordinson]

Ask the people who have been attacked or labeled as Zionist because of their identity, not their political position, if they agree

Click to shrink...

I have and they don't think the term is nebulous or impossible to define because they define it themselves in very simple terms.

 

[Dyle]

I have and they don't think the term is nebulous or impossible to define because they define it themselves in very simple terms.

Click to shrink...

Just because you think it is easy to define does not mean that others agree with you. As usual with you I think we can end it at that.

 

[Thordinson]

Just because you think it is easy to define does not mean that others agree with you. As usual with you I think we can end it at that.

Click to shrink...

But the others you are talking about agree that it's easy to define. Even vehement Zionists claim it's easy to define and means only one thing. They just have a different definition than some folks here may have.

 

[Dyle]

But the others you are talking about agree that it's easy to define. Even vehement Zionists claim it's easy to define and means only one thing. They just have a different definition than some folks here may have.

Click to shrink...

If multiple groups of people all have different definitions which they believe to be true then there is clearly no consensus. Thus the term is inherently nebulous and requires additional context, which we can clearly see was not provided here in the initial rule change.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Ignoring the huge derail going on here, it's cool the awards are standing by their guns and moving venues. People who support genocide should not be welcome.

 

[Thordinson]

If multiple groups of people all have different definitions which they believe to be true then there is clearly no consensus. Thus the term is inherently nebulous and requires additional context, which we can clearly see was not provided here in the initial rule change.

Click to shrink...

The disagreement largely stems from whether Zionism is a good thing or a bad thing rather than a small amount of definitions.

As I said, a Zionist by any definition inherently implies that the West Bank belongs to the State of Israel, as it did historically, and that the state of Israel must be protected/exist. Folks are disagreeing whether these are good or not.

Ignoring the huge derail going on here, it's cool the awards are standing by their guns and moving venues. People who support genocide should not be welcome.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely.

 

[Dyle]

The disagreement largely stems from whether Zionism is a good thing or a bad thing rather than a small amount of definitions.

Click to shrink...

Connotation is clearly part of the definition of any word, but we ought not extend our monthly semantic debate. We are both in agreement that it is a shame that people have been harmed in this instance and wish it had not occurred.

 

[Messofanego]

Zionism has a pretty clear definition of being a colonial ethno-nationalist project that has resulted in displacment, apartheid, and a genocide to maintain the demographic, and people obfuscating that are deflecting from what has happened here. That zionists harassed this organisation and threatened the safety of an in-person event. The organisation are very clear in what they mean by zionism in their statement, so this is a distraction.

"Zionism is a movement that has historically been weaponized to support the establishment and maintenance of an Israeli apartheid.

We take issue with the pro-imperialist, anti-Semitic rhetoric that has led to the incorrect conflation of Judaism with Zionism.

We support a free Palestine and denounce the genocide that has been occurring."

 

[Dyle]

Zionism has a pretty clear definition of being a colonial ethno-nationalist project that has resulted in displacment, apartheid, and a genocide to maintain the demographic, and people obfuscating that are deflecting from what has happened here. That zionists harassed this organisation and threatened the safety of an in-person event. The organisation are very clear in what they mean by zionism in their statement, so this is a distraction.

"Zionism is a movement that has historically been weaponized to support the establishment and maintenance of an Israeli apartheid.

We take issue with the pro-imperialist, anti-Semitic rhetoric that has led to the incorrect conflation of Judaism with Zionism.

We support a free Palestine and denounce the genocide that has been occurring."

Click to shrink...

They did not provide a definition in the original announcement, hence the reason this was a problem. Had they done so they likely would not have received as much hate.

 

[Messofanego]

They did not provide a definition in the original announcement, hence the reason this was a problem. Had they done so they likely would not have received as much hate.

Click to shrink...

Them providing the definition would not have reduced the harassment from zionists.

 

[Thordinson]

Zionism has a pretty clear definition of being a colonial ethno-nationalist project that has resulted in displacment, apartheid, and a genocide to maintain the demographic, and people obfuscating that are deflecting from what has happened here. That zionists harassed this organisation and threatened the safety of an in-person event. The organisation are very clear in what they mean by zionism in their statement, so this is a distraction.

"Zionism is a movement that has historically been weaponized to support the establishment and maintenance of an Israeli apartheid.

We take issue with the pro-imperialist, anti-Semitic rhetoric that has led to the incorrect conflation of Judaism with Zionism.

We support a free Palestine and denounce the genocide that has been occurring."

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

They did not provide a definition in the original announcement, hence the reason this was a problem. Had they done so they likely would not have received as much hate.

Click to shrink...

Simply saying Zionist will lead to harrasment.

 

[Dyle]

Them providing the definition would not have reduced the harassment from zionists.

Click to shrink...

I don't believe that to be true, though obviously there is no way to know. This issue has happened to dozens of arts groups since October 7th and the lack of specificity has always been one of the primary causes of debate and uncertainty. If you don't define a contentious word yourself it will be defined for you.

 

[haziq]

"Anyone who supports the conflict in Gaza will not be allowed at this event." would be a better way to go about it.

 

[Thordinson]

"Anyone who supports the conflict in Gaza will not be allowed at this event." would be a better way to go about it.

Click to shrink...

Except the contention is about more than just Gaza including the illegal West Bank settlements and the maintenance of apartheid state of Israel.

Zionist makes sense in that case.

 

[haziq]

Except the contention is about more than just Gaza including the illegal West Bank settlements and the maintenance of apartheid state of Israel.

Zionist makes sense in that case.

Click to shrink...

But simplifying it to "Gaza" gets most of that across without the incendiary reaction that comes whenever the term "Zionist" is used.

 

[BringBackSonics]

Feel horrible for the organizers of the awards that got harassed.

 

[effingvic]

I appreciate them for their statement and for sticking with it. Genocide should be a redline everywhere.

 

[Muffin]

I don't believe that to be true, though obviously there is no way to know. This issue has happened to dozens of arts groups since October 7th and the lack of specificity has always been one of the primary causes of debate and uncertainty. If you don't define a contentious word yourself it will be defined for you.

Click to shrink...

What about using the term "Zionist" is uncertain? Nothing is. Zionists don't deny that they want borders of a biblical Israel in a modern state of Israel. That's the core of their ideology. What that entails they just omit or disregard the immorality of it.

What they don't like is pointing out that what they're promoting is immoral or illegal.

Not using the word "Zionist" and just saying something about promoters of war in Gaza or illegal settlements in the West Bank would have changed zero. These people get outraged because they feel they get unfairly attacked in this case for promoting something they feel is legitimate to advocate for based on what they've been taught, even when in reality the official stance of the US itself is that both the West Bank and Gaza have been illegally occupied. Not that somebody used the word "Zionist". It is baffling to me to blame the organizers for using the term.

 

[Dyle]

What about using the term "Zionist" is uncertain?

Click to shrink...

"Zionist" can be used as a general anti-Semitic slur, irrespective of political position, in the same way that "globalist" is, and thus any use of it needs context, which the rule change tweet didn't have. People on social media are terrible and giving them ammo but not using precise language never works out well. I firmly believe they would have received less hate had the rule change been more clearly written.

 

[Thordinson]

But simplifying it to "Gaza" gets most of that across without the incendiary reaction that comes whenever the term "Zionist" is used.

Click to shrink...

But it doesn't get all of what they wanted across which is the point.

"Zionist" can be used as a general anti-Semitic slur, irrespective of political position, in the same way that "globalist" is, and thus any use of it needs context, which the rule change tweet didn't have. People on social media are terrible and giving them ammo but not using precise language never works out well. I firmly believe they would have received less hate had the rule change been more clearly written.

Click to shrink...

Unless one thinks that the original tweet is saying " promotes Jewish material" and "engage in activities that without a doubt support Judaism" I don't see how one understands that particular usage as anti-Semitic.

Starting from the position that Zionism = Judaism is inherently anti-Semitic however.

 

[Muffin]

"Zionist" can be used as a general anti-Semitic slur, irrespective of political position, in the same way that "globalist" is, and thus any use of it needs context, which the rule change tweet didn't have. People on social media are terrible and giving them ammo but not using precise language never works out well. I firmly believe they would have received less hate had the rule change been more clearly written.

Click to shrink...

"Zionist" isn't used as a general antisemitic slur, Zionists want everyone to think that it is so they can discredit anyone as antisemite who disagrees with them and uses the accurate term for their beliefs, even if they don't really take offense with it and use it themselves in contexts without outsiders.

Antisemites have enough shit they say about jews instead of using Zionist specifically as a slur.

It's certainly generally not used in a way that would justify not using the term anymore and tiptoeing around Zionist tactics. That's just encouraging that it works.

 

[Dyle]

Unless one thinks that the original tweet is saying " promotes Jewish material" and "engage in activities that without a doubt support Judaism" I don't see how one understands that particular usage as anti-Semitic.

Starting from the position that Zionism = Judaism is inherently anti-Semitic however.

Click to shrink...

"Zionist" isn't used as a general antisemitic slur, Zionists want everyone to think that it is so they can discredit anyone as antisemite who disagrees with them and uses the accurate term for their beliefs, even if they don't really take offense with it and use it themselves in contexts without outsiders.

Antisemites have enough shit they say about jews instead of using Zionist specifically as a slur.

It's certainly generally not used in a way that would justify not using the term anymore and tiptoeing around Zionist tactics. That's just encouraging that it works.

Click to shrink...

The proof is in the pudding. Look at the replies to the original tweet. Dozens of people interpreted it in that way.

 

[Hoot]

Considering what current zionism overwhelmingly stands for the in the political landscape (as an ideology that is inherently colonialist and genocidal), I don't see the problem and I feel tip toing around it whitewashes what is essentially religious and national motivated ethnic cleansing. Especially when most zionists are not even jewish but white american christofascists. I also don't think trying to offer a more "nuanced" definition would've changed anything, because the point is always to muddy the waters around the motivation behind Israel's genocidal campaign.

But I think it's a good statement from them either way and it's a huge shame of the harassment they have gotten for rightfully standing against barbarity and propaganda

 

[Thorrgal]

How many zionist table top publishers are there anyway? And if there are any just don't nominate them? This seems like a perfectly avoidable situation...

 

[julian]

There are many people who define themselves as Zionists actively protesting Israel and who support a Palestinian state. Some of you need to go talk to more Jews and stop insisting you know how a word primarily used by Jews should be interpreted by them.

 

[Thordinson]

The proof is in the pudding. Look at the replies to the original tweet. Dozens of people interpreted it in that way.

Click to shrink...

Muffin offered an explanation why. Because Zionists want folks to think anyone who is anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic to shut down any conversation around Zionism that isn't support of it. They want to conflate Zionism with Judaism.

Not because folks genuinely think that particular use in the OP was actually antisemitic.

There are many people who define themselves as Zionists actively protesting Israel and who support a Palestinian state. Some of you need to go talk to more Jews and stop insisting you know how a word primarily used by Jews should be interpreted by them.

Click to shrink...

This assumes that folks replying about Zionism either aren't either talking to Jewish folks or aren't Jewish themselves.

 

[Deleted member 24854]

How many zionist table top publishers are there anyway? And if there are any just don't nominate them? This seems like a perfectly avoidable situation...

Click to shrink...

But the point is to make a statement?

 

[Dyle]

Muffin offered an explanation why. Because Zionists want folks to think anyone who is anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic to shut down any conversation around Zionism that isn't support of it. They want to conflate Zionism with Judaism.

Not because folks genuinely think that particular use in the OP was actually antisemitic.

Click to shrink...

Again, we agree, many responded in bad faith. However, as an organization posting on social media you have to take steps to reduce the ability to respond in bad faith. If you provide them with an opening people will take it and they will use that ambiguity as a cudgel against you.

 

[Thordinson]

Again, we agree, many responded in bad faith. However, as an organization posting on social media you have to take steps to reduce the ability to respond in bad faith. If you provide them with an opening people will take it and they will use that ambiguity as a cudgel against you.

Click to shrink...

I feel that in this particular instance it doesn't matter. Even if their revised definition was used first, the same folks mad and harassing them would react the same at the word "apartheid."

 

[Messofanego]

There are many people who define themselves as Zionists actively protesting Israel and who support a Palestinian state. Some of you need to go talk to more Jews and stop insisting you know how a word primarily used by Jews should be interpreted by them.

Click to shrink...

Are you disagreeing with the CRIT Awards' criteria to not allow nominations from Zionists or their definition of Zionism?

 

[jph139]

Leftists need to get off of zionist as a slur. Like, if you're in favor of a two-state solution - that Israel and Palestine both have a right to exist - you're, by most definitions, a zionist. It's an incredibly mainstream position, and isn't incompatible with wanting an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or anything like that.

Anti-apartheid, anti-occupation, pro-Palestine, whatever; there's a lot of ways to phrase your position that are more specific and less likely to provide cover for antisemitic rhetoric.

 

[Muffin]

Like, if you're in favor of a two-state solution - that Israel and Palestine both have a right to exist - you're, by most definitions, a zionist.

Click to shrink...

Citation needed on that one. Two state solution means the West Bank goes to a proper Palestinian nation. Zionism at its core requires areas like the West Bank to be part of an Israeli nation.

If people call themselves zionist despite that they don't know what the term means.

 

[Thordinson]

Leftists need to get off of zionist as a slur. Like, if you're in favor of a two-state solution - that Israel and Palestine both have a right to exist - you're, by most definitions, a zionist. It's an incredibly mainstream position, and isn't incompatible with wanting an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or anything like that.

Anti-apartheid, anti-occupation, pro-Palestine, whatever; there's a lot of ways to phrase your position that are more specific and less likely to provide cover for antisemitic rhetoric.

Click to shrink...

I think it is incompatible. Zionism, as it is currently understood, requires an apartheid state. It also requires the West Bank to be a part of the state of Israel.

There is already a large number of Zionists who consider being Pro-Palestinian to be antisemitic so I don't think that works.

 

[RetroRunner]

I have and they don't think the term is nebulous or impossible to define because they define it themselves in very simple terms.

Click to shrink...

I've been attacked with the term and I think it is nebulous and harkens back to blood libel bullshit

 

[Thordinson]

I've been attacked with the term and I think it is nebulous and harkens back to blood libel bullshit

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry you've been attacked by the term. I don't think folks should be attacked using the term simply for because they are Jewish.

May I ask what term you think would be better?

 

[RetroRunner]

I'm sorry you've been attacked by the term. I don't think folks should be attacked using the term simply for because they are Jewish.

May I ask what term you think would be better?

Click to shrink...

I don't care use any term other than Zionism at this point, it's been co-opted by too many shitheads.

 

[Thordinson]

I don't care use any term other than Zionism at this point, it's been co-opted by too many shitheads.

Click to shrink...

I feel that you would quickly run out of terms to use if we keep worrying about shitheads using terms in bad faith. Especially since there are many shitheads who call themselves Zionists as well.

But I do understand where you are coming from.