This post was last edited on 12 September 2024.
I am only speaking for myself, but this is my account.
On 10 September, our leadership met with Gen Con to present our report including requests and improvements for next year. Gen Con listened to the report and asked questions for the full hour, and then said quickly, right before ending the call, that the show went “really well” and all our work was appreciated, and also no one on the current committee will be invited back next year.
This is extremely distressing to me. The loss to the community is significant but there are also huge emotional, practical, and financial losses for my family. We were investing, a whole community was investing in a long-term plan for inclusion. You don’t turn these things fully around in a couple years. It also sends the message that a pro-inclusion committee can be mistreated and then dismissed without consequence.
I posted this that evening: The GCWS committee was informed tonight by Gen Con, with no reason given, that our show went “really well” but no people on the committee will be invited back next year. I will be requesting a meeting with Mr. Adkison. At a minimum, I would like a reason given for our dismissal, because without a reason I will only have my own documentation to show, regarding how Gen Con addressed issues of both race and disability.
Many people were upset that I spoke publicly and also used the terms “race” and “disability”.
I spoke publicly, because I’d stayed silent all year, and this was the result. Based on that treatment, I had no confidence anything I said internally would make its way to Mr. Adkison. I used the terms not as a threat, but to convey why this is serious and why I want to talk to him personally.
I am also hearing from many people that my removal from Origins Game Fair also over issues related to inclusion (they write “race” as if they aren’t ready to believe me) is evidence that I must be a problem. I do not have energy to defend my integrity or the existence of documentation. And no, it means that cons are working very hard to discredit someone who is in and doing the work. Origins Game Fair has a reputation for being a con very comfortable in whiteness. Gen Con Writers’ Symposium used to have a reputation for being unfriendly to BIPOC and many other writing communities. The last two years, that changed. I’m discouraged but not surprised that in 2024, the reaction is still – two places can’t be fighting inclusion – you must be the issue.
I am also hearing that my tone is defensive. I’m exhausted, mentally disabled, and heartbroken. Care more about what happened than my tone.
I am requesting to talk to Mr. Adkison. If he will talk to me, privately, candidly, and openly, then perhaps all the people affected by this can at least have some peace.
I do not want to tell the story until I know if Mr. Adkison will speak to me. It would be better for him to hear it directly. Perhaps some of the elements of this can still be handled privately.
People are asking me to consider staying quiet until he speaks to me. I do not have confidence that my going silent will have that effect. I’d like to talk to him.
Update: A writer who has asked to remain anonymous has reached out to Mr. Adkison of Gen Con and he says he will not meet with me. So I will tell the story. I was hoping to try and resolve it privately but I am told this is not possible.
—
Everything started when we invited Mikki Kendall as a Special Guest. Marian McBride reached out and said her boss (Derek Guder) had “concerns” about Mikki, that she did not have draw or broad appeal. I heard the dogwhistles, but still explained why she was a good fit. The entire committee agreed disinviting her at this late point after she’d already accepted and for this reason would be inappropriate and harmful on multiple levels. We were told not to announce the guests, and were asked to an “emergency meeting” whose title was something like “Concerns regarding Special Guest Mikki Kendall”. Specifically, the whole committee was asked to be there.
I thought, oh good, we can explain our inclusion plans and why Mikki is an awesome choice.
The summary of that meeting was:
- It was an ambush, stated to be a necessary dressing-down of the committee by someone who had no knowledge of what we did.
- I was looked at in the eye and told, “I need you to realize that what you did was bad.” and also “You invited two Special Guests with no draw and no broad appeal. Isn’t that correct?”
- We were repeatedly accused of funneling GCWS money for personal use.
- At no point was I actually allowed to explain anything to Derek; he would not let me speak.
It is critical to note that a stated goal of this meeting (once we got into it) was that we would delay the announcement of Guests. This had real impact to real writers, who were already booking travel and being required to buy badges. We also didn’t want to ask writers to submit to the anthology without a contract and time was running out for that process, which was also central to our long-term inclusion plans. We were protecting the writers by refusing to let the issue be slow-rolled until we agreed to disinvite Mikki.
Here is my contemporaneous documentation of that meeting, finished on 31 January and signed off on by three people at the time as accurate:
—
An emergency meeting was called by Marian for 30 January 2024, to address concerns about our invited guests, specifically Mikki Kendall’s lack of “broad appeal”. She requested that as much of the full committee be present.
Chris started the meeting by introducing the committee. He said, as the subject was questions on programming invitations, I would be taking his questions. So I asked what questions he had.
Derek said his question was on the committee roles. He kept pressing Chris for answers on committee structure, and then Derek still stated he was not getting the roles of the committee. When I began to explain exactly the roles of the committee, he cut me off, and said he didn’t want to discuss that, he had things he wanted to say to us and we needed to listen.
About twenty minutes into the meeting, I stated that I had not been asked any questions, and wanted to ensure that time didn’t run out before resolving that we would be announcing the Special and Invited Guests on February 1st. Derek stated we had a full hour “unless we had somewhere we needed to go” and said I needed to let him continue. I insisted on first telling Derek I needed him to hear that if we could not resolve the announcement of Guests, this would cause problems for Gen Con, and I was happy to explain why. He asked to continue talking, and resumed his comments. After another twenty minutes, I again noted the time and repeated my concern.
At this point, Marian told me I was no longer permitted to speak, closed her hand like lips, and made an down and up motion onto the desk or table to emphasize the point.
I repeated that I was speaking because I needed Derek to understand that delaying the announcement would cause difficulties for Gen Con and I was happy to explain why, and that I was concerned the meeting would end, he’d need to go, and that this time-critical issue would not be resolved. I repeated I had not been asked any questions.
At some point, he said that we had a different understanding of this meeting. I said we had clear documentation that the specific concern raised to us was Mikki Kendall. I asked if Mikki Kendall was a concern and Derek responded, he didn’t know Mikki Kendall, he hadn’t looked her up, and she was not the subject of this meeting or any concern. Chris said that all the emails to himself and also Seth were specifically about Mikki Kendall.
I again repeated that especially in that context, a delay of the announcement would cause problems for Gen Con as well, and I was happy to answer any questions about programming, but I’d not been asked any questions.
Derek repeated until the very end that he had “not yet made the decision” on our announcement. Almost at the very end, he said we should not delay it, he agreed that would cause problems, and again conveyed his disapproval of our committee.
From Derek:
- Derek said he was not here to “lecture” us but his intent of the meeting was to tell us that he was displeased with our committee and things were going to have to change.
- Derek repeatedly stated our committee was “bloated” and “top heavy”. When I began to explain what each member did instead of Chris, he cut me off, and said he was here to talk to us.
- Derek stated that it was “self-evident” that we could not make any public statement about our event, nor could we invite panelists, without Gen Con’s review and approval. I said it might be reasonable but it was not self-evident to me after 20 years of never having had that request. He said it “should” be self-evident and it was concerning it was not.
- Derek stated that perhaps we will go forward with the announcements, but “I need you to know that what you did was bad.” This was directed at me and in the context of my work putting together the Guest list. He also said he was “seeing” the complaints about the committee he had received, and that the committee had repeatedly been unresponsive to Marian’s requests. I suggested that he was referring to Ed Greenwood, and I’d be happy to tell him exactly what happened. He said not just Ed Greenwood but “other things” but would not say what they were. He said he would not stand for such things, and I said but they need to be true.
- Derek repeatedly said that the two additional hotel rooms we were allocated in 2023 were no longer going to Guests. I told him this was not true, they were going to Guests, and explained (again over Marian’s demands that I not speak) why the decision was made to give them to committee Guests to ensure representation and inclusion in the ways communicated to us by the BIPOC communities rather than featuring four Guests as “Special”
- Derek said it was clear our organizations were not “meshing” and the purpose of the meeting was to tell us that. This again, was the first time he had ever reached out to us, and his facts were broadly and specifically inaccurate.
- Derek mentioned that we are not going to “sue each other” and so his direction must be followed, or he implied the Symposium could be cut and/or taken over by Gen Con proper.
- Derek implied that my intent with the Guest list was to invite people I “wanted autographs” from, and suggested that we could consider someone who might be a first time author, but has valuable things to say. I said our program was designed the way that he was asking for, and if he had questions for me, I could answer them. He again said he did not have questions, he wanted us to hear that what we had done was bad and inappropriate.
- Other false statements and inappropriate judgments were made toward me and the committee as a whole (including a lack of understanding of our volunteer role and financial and emotional investment), but typing this has already been triggering enough and I think it documents the essence of the meeting.
From Emily:
- I repeatedly said that process issues for 2025 would best be handled in a non-emergency context.
- I repeatedly asked if he had specific questions, and stated I had not been asked any questions.
- I repeatedly said that delaying the announcement would have a negative impact to Gen Con and I would be happy to explain why.
- I disclosed that I was brought onto the committee in the first place because I am fully mentally disabled and started to say why that was relevant. Derek cut me off and continued talking.
- I insisted on saying the names of the two Special Guests, despite multiple attempts to prevent me from even saying their names. He said we agree they do not have “broad appeal” – I said no, they do have broad appeal.
- Everything I said had to be in the form of an interruption because it was clearly Derek’s intent to talk until he had to go. He used this to say that he was “seeing” what Marian had been telling him. I said that I had not talked to Marian in a long time, and said the information he had been given should be true before making statements against me or our committee. He continued that we had not been responsive to her needs. I asked if this was about Ed Greenwood, and repeated that the information should be true, and I would be happy to answer any questions, but he had not asked me any questions.
- I felt forced to choose between staying silent and causing our announcement to be indefinitely delayed without any stated cause, or to be set up as “unprofessional” – this was ableist, sexist, harmful, and wrong.
- At the hour, Marian said Derek had to leave right then, and tried to cut off any further exchange. Derek stayed on for another 7-10 minutes.
—
Again, the goal was to delay the announcement of Guests until we disinvited Mikki or the committee disinvited me for refusing to do that. Derek said he didn’t know who Mikki or Linda were, he would not look them up, and he and didn’t care. (And he refused to let me tell him, then didn’t read our report he asked for.) Further delays would have put an inappropriate burden and risk on writers. If I had not spoken up in this meeting, the announcement would have been delayed. If I had been removed, much of the committee would have left. All the progress this community had been making would be very much endangered.
My standing up to Derek is the reason the event happened. But Derek clearly decided, by the feedback given, he would have my blood for it.
During that meeting, Derek had asked for extensive information immediately in order for us to make our announcement, and again, I have explained the impacts that would have had. Several members of our team, and even volunteers from outside of it, worked all day and stayed up all night answering his direct requests for information – I was concerned about the level of information he was out of the blue demanding, but the team said, no, let’s work with him, let’s operate in good faith.
The document we sent addressed all Derek’s questions and accusations. He refused to read it. Any of it. Still hasn’t, to my knowledge.
After this, as a legally fully mentally disabled person with PTSD, I was physically distressed for days. My arms and eyes kept twitching and I was waking up screaming. I talked to Chris, and said – I can’t do this again. Can we ask Gen Con to accommodate my disability? I’m happy to work with them, but I can’t handle being personally attacked like that physically. (Also, Chris has asked me not to speak to the health effects he was having.)
So Chris sent an email to Derek asking for a disability accommodation. He said that I was fully legally disabled with PTSD, and to please not give me personal feedback like “What you did was bad” as opposed to needs from Gen Con. Marian responded to this by saying if I have a disability I could go to the Kiosk at the event next to Will Call.
In the follow-up to this, Chris had three lengthy conversations (8 hours total) with Derek and then Marian. Derek used techniques familiar to DARVO, such as repeating “Chris…Chris… I am being calm here.” and accusing Chris of refusing to explain things that he’d just explained. Chris somehow managed to stay collected during these conversations. (I think like 3-4 total times in the three calls I heard him sort of breathe out, “Ok but that’s not true” / “I’ll explain that if you’ll let me”.) He also repeated over and over that oversight was not an issue, it was that we were very late in the process and writers were being hurt by these delays. The end result was Marian asking straight-out for me to be silenced or removed. When Chris said he would not do that, Marian said that she … just didn’t know, then, what would happen.
By this point, writers were really feeling the impacts of the delays against our long-posted schedule. People were spending travel money, making plans, and we were getting an increasing vibe that the intent was to cancel the event entirely. A lot of writers were telling me they couldn’t afford refundable tickets, or their work schedule requests were due – could I please confirm this was happening.
Derek requested more information at that point, after already telling us he didn’t read anything we would send him. He asked for a list of Featured Speakers and their compensation and qualifications. We said we would provide a budgeted list and also that the website already had the authors and their bios.
He said, no, he wanted a custom paragraph for each person. It was clear to the committee at this point that he was going to slow-roll us until we broke. In that context, Chris sent this co-signed email:
—
Derek,
After giving our last meeting some thought, I decided to consult with the committee before sending you the full list of invited speaker qualifications and compensation (among the other items, most of which I have already provided). I have coordinated this with the committee without disagreement.
It has become clear that Gen Con is demanding a fundamental change to the underlying relationship with the Writers’ Symposium team, 7 months into our planning and execution for 2024—a relationship that for the past many years has worked well. Any relationship where we are being micromanaged and belittled is not going to work for us. We are busy professionals with exceptional qualifications putting our personal time and resources into this event with only partial reimbursement of our costs, and no payment for our labor.
This will not be turned into any statement that we are unwilling to report to you or work with you. In response to the contentious meeting on 30 January 2024, our team worked overnight putting together the information you requested, providing it within 24 hours of the meeting. Yesterday you told me you haven’t read it, and you are again asking our team to provide many of the same answers that have already been provided. We have operated in good faith, and we cannot continue to repeat the same information with the same accusations.
Please see for reference on information provided:
2023 Final Report, sent 04 September 2023, 28 Pages
Response to Derek Guder requests, 31 January 2024, 7 Pages
We would like the 2024 GCWS to proceed. It is good for writers, good for the community, good for Gen Con, good for Indianapolis, and it is an event that we have all seen directly change lives year after year. However, this sudden and drastic change to our relationship that you are expecting has made this no longer possible. As such, I am no longer willing to sign the contract in any form, and our committee is not willing to continue operating without one.
If Gen Con would like to reconsider its decision on our relationship for 2024, I am willing to postpone making any announcement regarding our “inability to reach an agreement” on our contract. For this to be salvaged, Gen Con would need to agree to issue us a contract with terms similar to 2023 as previously communicated, and with the Symposium’s full ability to expend the resources provided to us as we best see fit, within the same reasonable guidelines that we have operated under for many years.
Unfortunately, we are at a critical point in our schedule with authors making travel plans, purchasing badges (required for them to seek lottery housing), etc. I will need any offer from GenCon to be made by Close of Business (COB) tomorrow, 16 February 2024. No response will be considered as a rejection of this offer.
As we’ve repeatedly stated, we are willing to discuss a changed relationship for 2025 in September, but plans for 2024 cannot be changed at this late point, after people have spent hundreds of hours donating their labor, after travel plans have been made, after Featured Speakers have bought badges to prepare for the housing lottery, after announcements have been made.
I understand that this might result in a very public and open response by the invited authors, volunteers, and fans of the Symposium. The reputation of the Symposium leadership team is well-known and respected, as are our recent efforts toward inclusion, and this sudden change of plans will have significant impact to many.
Please let me know.
Chris Bell
Co-Signed:
Alex Bevier
Ava Kelly
Emily D.E. Bell
Seth Lindberg
Toiya Kristen Finley
—
His response was:
Chris,
It is very unfortunate that we have reached this point.
Gen Con has not attempted to fundamentally change the structure of the Writers’ Symposium nor micromanage its operation. We are not objecting to the selected guests or who they are. In fact, it was the confusion about our expectation that there would be four special guests this year and not only two that made it clear the root issues were communication and coordination.
The continued escalation of this situation has been reviewed internally (I have copied my boss on this reply) and Gen Con remains committed to finding a way to host the Writers’ Symposium in 2024 – it is valuable to us, our attendees, and attending authors. However, just over 24 hours is not a suitable timeline to make such a significant decision. We would like to continue negotiations in the hope we can still reach a compromise that satisfies both parties.
Knowing you are going on vacation now, is there someone we can work with in your stead to attempt to resolve this?
—
Again, and this is important – We did not refuse oversight. We offered it over and over and over. Yet Peter Adkison’s anonymous proxy keeps highlighting “full ability to expend the resources provided to us as we best see fit” as evidence that we refused oversight. I’ve explained here why that’s not true. Read the rest of the email and view it in context. Anyone reading only that sentence and saying “see” is clearly acting with bias, including perhaps a desire to stay in Derek’s and Peter’s inner circle. We were being slow-rolled (DoS?) because of a stated issue with Mikki Kendall. These delays were hurting writers. They did hurt writers.
So, after this, the contract was signed. Yet – because of these delays, I worked programming on my first vacation in 9+ years. I worked on spreadsheets, uncomfortably, bumping down the highway. I had to put off working with a distressed young author, who ended up DYING during this time.
I put my heart and soul into this program. It’s a good program.
We did tell Gen Con that we were investing significant personal resources for the long-term plan, and please to let us know if there was intent for us not to continue.
—
As we moved forward:
- No complaints were provided, despite Gen Con’s agreement they would raise any issues to Chris.
- Gen Con refused to promote a single GCWS event, including from our Special Guests, or the Anthology.
- Despite all of this, all statistics regarding GCWS were improved.
It was also told to me that Gen Con does not intend to disinvite the entire committee – this was a lie and they only refuse to work with “The Bells” – which again, is clearly me, since Chris refused to shut me up.
Bottom line is, a mentally disabled person who was brought into GCWS in the first place to make the event welcoming to more writers including disabled people, was abused and mocked regarding her disability, and is now being personally targeted because I stood in the way of a last-minute effort by one person who had no knowledge of our inclusion plan (and still doesn’t, to my knowledge, he’s refused to this day to let me speak to it) overruling a committee-wide decision not to disinvite Mikki Kendall, a NYT best-selling expert on the #1 issue in gamewriting who is also a graphic novelist, and brilliant, community-minded person, in the presence of known dogwhistles.
I will not defend my integrity, and I hope that people will stand with us. But if not, the work continues.
The final response (sent by proxy who wishes to remain anonymous) is:
“Derek has directly expressed to me that GenCon [sic] is open to working with the rest of this last year’s leadership committee, excepting Chris and Emily Bell, whom they specifically will not work with again. Even those who signed what I call the Ultimatum email, which I understand caused a lot of consternation.”
I am asking Gen Con and/or the 2025 GCWS Committee for a specific reason why they will not work with “Chris and Emily Bell” and I think I deserve that answer. Hopefully I’ll get at least that much respect from the community.
And one final thought: you really don’t have to have the argument about me in any way. Derek Guder is on the record saying that neither Linda D. Addison nor Mikki Kendall have draw or broad appeal at the same time he said he did not know them and refused to find out. He is also using this “four not two” Guests thing like it’s a gotcha, but he wouldn’t allow anyone on the committee to explain verbally why we did that, why it was coordinated with Marian in August and January, or why it did not violate their intent in any way, or why changing it at that point would be directly harmful – and he refused to read anything submitted in writing. Please evaluate those actions on their own.
Emily.
Cool people you should follow:
Some friends to support:
Good to know where Gen Con stands on misogynoir. I will continue to spend my con money elsewhere, as it is clear people like me are not welcome there.