Misconduct Policy

General Principles

At every stage, it is imperative that SSSMG and its conference groups (including NACVGM and Ludo) publicly and privately support those coming forward to report abuse and misconduct. We recognize that systems of power have historically silenced such voices, and have failed to provide avenues to hold perpetrators accountable, which has led to abuses of power running rampant in academia.

All participants must comply with the Society’s Code of Conduct (CoC) at all times. It is our goal to provide a safe and supportive community, in which all voices are equally respected. Everyone attending the above-mentioned conferences agrees to take note of the CoC and behave themselves accordingly.

In a case of misconduct, abuse or assault it is of utmost importance to follow predefined procedures in order to responsibly and sensitively

  1. care for the person reporting these incidents
  2. handle accusations
  3. communicate with the community.

Care for the person coming forward is the top priority. They should be assumed to be acting in good faith, and engaged with sincerely, compassionately, respectfully and with open transparency. The accused should also be treated respectfully, particularly so that unnecessary distress and inappropriate escalation is avoided.

This policy presents guidelines for handling misconduct complaints. We recognize, however, that every situation is different, and so it may be necessary to adjust the processes in this document depending on the context at hand.

When a Complaint is Made

If the accusation occurs on social media, the post should not be deleted, but a statement made on behalf of the Society to indicate that these accusations are taken seriously.

It should clarify that the organisation is in the process of engaging with the accuser, and that this procedure is underway immediately (preferably linking to this document). The statement should also indicate that, given the accusation and as per this policy, additional comments on the thread will be left if they are speaking from direct personal experience (from the “I”) or offering messages of support, but otherwise restricted or deleted to avoid inappropriate escalation. Ad-hominem attacks, speculation, harassment and hate speech concerning any party, however, will be deleted. Additional and new posts on the page should be allowed. Moderators and executive committee members should not engage in discussion beyond statements of support and indicating that steps are being taken.  

Whether online or offline, the first stage is to provide reassurance to the accuser that they are being listened to, and that their statement will be believed and taken seriously. If appropriate, the accuser should be directed towards professional support services, including mental health support and counselling, relevant to the context and geographic location. Members of the organization should not themselves take on the role properly taken by professional mental health support or give legal advice.

As quickly as possible after the declaration of misconduct (communicated through any medium), an offer of a confidential meeting with some executive members of the Society should be provided to the accuser. At least two members of the executive committee should be present at that meeting, but the accuser may choose who is, and who is not, at that meeting. They may invite up to two supporters if they wish. Again, it is important to emphasize, privately and publicly, that the organization is listening and taking these accusations seriously. Factual notes should be taken at the meeting and shared with all parties who attended the meeting to avoid misunderstandings. Given the sensitive subject matter those notes are not to be shared with third parties without the consent of all participants of that meeting. Members are explicitly reminded that sharing the notes publicly or with third parties is strictly forbidden.

Finding a Course of Action

The primary role of this meeting is to understand how the accuser wants to take forward their complaint/accusation, what action that they would like the Society to take, and the proper channels for doing so. We here distinguish between accusations of behavioural and personal misconduct (e.g. harassment) and those of professional malpractice (e.g. plagiarism).

In cases concerning behavioural and personal misconduct

A range of options are possible here, depending on the accuser’s choice and experiences. In the most minor cases, they may wish simply for the accused to be issued with a warning concerning their conduct. Anything other than the most minor cases will most likely result in an immediate suspension of the accused, and SSSMG reserves the right to permanently ban an individual from our events and services pending outcomes from a formal investigation by a suitably qualified institution.

The Society will also highlight these possible courses of action:

i) Encouraging the accuser to report the matter to the police. Though we acknowledge the poor track record of law enforcement’s engagement with matters of misconduct, this may be the most appropriate course of action.  

ii) Raising the matter with the accused’s employer through the institutional complaints procedure.

iii) Legal recourse.

Both the police and the employer will have more agency than SSSMG. The Society will signpost these to the accuser and indicate that they have the Society’s support and encouragement within the academic community to use those channels. 

The role of the organization is not to serve as a forum for judgement, it is to support members of the academic community. This includes taking care to avoid situations where individuals or the organization may be at legal risk. The organisation will not act as a mediator between the accuser and accused. It will not investigate or seek to pronounce judgement. Any action beyond restriction to Society services (below) should be approved by the Executive Committee, taking legal advice if necessary.

The accused should be sent a short, factual message indicating that it has come to the attention of the organisation that there have been accusations of misconduct received, and that they have been referred on to proper authorities. While listening and taking seriously all accusations of misconduct, the organisation does not make judgements itself. Nevertheless, unless the accuser requests otherwise, to protect the reputation of the organisation and for the safety of members, the accused is not to attend organisation events or use organisation forums (e.g. social media) until the appropriate procedures from the side of law enforcement and legal authorities have run their course. If this discourse is occurring publicly, the accused may, of course, wish to make a public statement through their own channels. 

In light of the outcome of investigations and decisions made by the responsible organizers/institutions, the Executive Committee will decide what action should be taken (such as restricting the accused’s access to Society services), taking legal advice if necessary. 

By using the Society’s services, all those who engage with the Society agree to this policy and procedure. The Society and conference groups have always reserved the right to restrict access to Society services. 

In cases concerning professional malpractice

Where accusations of professional malpractice are made, the accuser will be guided and supported to approach the organizers or the institutions owning the forum in which the malpractice was undertaken or evident. For example, if the accusation relates to work published in the Journal of Sound and Music in Games, which subscribes to the COPE guidelines on publishing ethics, they will be directed to approach the Editors-in-Chief and publisher; if the accusation relates to conference papers, they will be directed to the conference organizers; if it relates to work undertaken at an academic institution, they will be directed to the ethical body of the institution, and so on. 

The accused should be sent a short, factual message indicating that it has come to the attention of the Society that there have been accusations of professional malpractice, and that they have been referred on to the relevant responsible organizers or owning institutions. If this discourse is occurring publicly, the accused may, of course, wish to make a public statement through their own channels.

The role of the organization is not to serve as a forum for judgement, it is to support members of the academic community. This includes taking care to avoid situations where individuals or the organization may be at legal risk. The organisation will not act as a mediator between the accuser and accused.

SSSMG reserves the right to permanently ban an individual from our events and services pending outcomes from a formal investigation by the responsible organizers or owning institutions. In light of the outcome of investigations and decisions made by the responsible organizers/institutions, the Executive Committee will decide what action should be taken (such as restricting the accused’s access to Society services), taking legal advice if necessary. 

By using the Society’s services, all those who engage with the Society agree to this policy and procedure. The Society and conference groups have always reserved the right to restrict access to Society services.

Communicating with Community

In cases concerning behavioural and personal misconduct

If the accusation was made in a public forum, the Society should issue a statement that reiterates support for those who come forward with reporting misconduct, indicates that a meeting was held with the accuser, reports that the accused has been suspended until further notice, and that the matter has been referred to the appropriate authorities.

The Society will continue to make statements in support of survivors of misconduct in general. The Society will not make statements judging individual cases before proper investigations have concluded.

In order to protect our community, the Society’s Executive Committee can choose to suspend members in solidarity and in concert with actions taken by other scholarly organizations or accusations made on non-SSSMG forums. The accuser can also direct the Society to share information about the situation with other organizations, particularly if it means they do not have to repeatedly recount distressing experiences. The Society will ask for confirmation of receipt whenever it shares this information.

In cases concerning professional malpractice

If the accusation was made in a public forum, the Society should issue a statement that reiterates support for those who come forward with reporting misconduct, indicates that a meeting was held with the accuser, and that the matter has been referred to the appropriate organizations. The Society will not make statements judging individual cases before proper investigations have concluded. In order to protect our community, the Society’s Executive Committee can choose to suspend members in solidarity and in concert with actions taken by other scholarly organizations or accusations made on non-SSSMG forums.

Rescinding Suspension

The Executive Committee can decide, if/when to advise conference organisers and other SSSMG affiliates that any restrictions on individuals should be lifted.