Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
The specter of sexual harassment has once again risen up in tabletop gaming circles. Conventions are supposed to be places where gamers and geeks can be themselves and embrace their loves. Conventions need clear and well formulated harassment policies, and they need to enforce them. In this instance the allegations from multiple women have taken place at gaming conventions and gathering in different locations around the country. In one case, the harassment was took place over the course of years and spilled over into electronic formats.


The alleged harasser in these cases was Sean Patrick Fannon, President of Evil Beagle Games, Brand Manager for Savage Rifts at Pinnacle Entertainment Group, as well as being a game designer and developer with a long history in the tabletop role-playing industry.

There is a long and untenable policy of harassment at conventions that stretches back to science fiction and fantasy fandom in the 1960s. Atlanta's Dragon*Con has been a lightning rod in the discussions about safety at geeky conventions after one of the convention's founders was arrested and pled guilty to three charges of molestation. We have also covered reports of harassment at conventions such as Paizo Con, and inappropriate or harassing behavior by notable industry figures. It is clear that clear harassment policies and firm enforcement of them is needed in spaces where members of our community gather, in order that attendees feel safe to go about their hobby. Some companies, such as Pelgrane Press, now refuse to attend conventions where a clear harassment policy is not available.

Several women have approached me to tell me about encounters with Fannon. Some of them asked not to be named, or to use their reports for background verification only. We also reached out to Sean Patrick Fannon for his comments, and he was willing to address the allegations.

The women that I spoke with had encounters with Fannon that went back to 2013 and 2014 but also happened as recently as the summer of 2017. Each of the locations were in different parts of the country, but all of them occurred when Fannon was a guest of the event.

The worse of the two incidents related to me happened at a convention in the Eastern part of the United States. In going back over texts and messages stretching back years the woman said that it "is frustrating [now] to read these things" because of the cajoling and almost bullying approach that Fannon would use in the messages. She said that Fannon approached her at the con suite of the convention, and after speaking with her for a bit and playing a game with a group in the suite he showed her explicit photos on his cellphone of him engaged in sex acts with a woman.

Fannon's ongoing harassment of this woman would occur both electronically and in person, when they would both be at the same event, and over the course of years he would continue to suggest that she should engage in sexual acts, either with him alone, or with another woman.

Fannon denies the nature of the event, saying "I will assert with confidence that at no time would such a sharing have occurred without my understanding explicit consent on the part of all parties. It may be that, somehow, a miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred; the chaos of a party or social gathering may have created a circumstance of all parties not understanding the same thing within such a discourse. Regardless, I would not have opened such a file and shared it without believing, sincerely, it was a welcome part of the discussion (and in pursuit of further, mutually-expressed intimate interest)."

The second woman, at a different gaming-related event in another part of the country, told of how Fannon, over the course of a day at the event, asked her on four different occasions for hugs, or physical contact with her. Each time she clearly said no to him. The first time she qualified her answer with a "I don't even know you," which prompted Fannon after he saw her for a second time to say "Well, you know me now." She said that because of the multiple attempts in a short period of time that Fannon's behavior felt predatory to her. Afterwards he also attempted to connect with her via Facebook.

Afterwards, this second woman contacted the group that organized the event to share what happened and they reached out to Fannon with their concerns towards his behavior. According to sources within the organization at the time, Fannon - as with the first example - described it to the organizers as a misunderstanding on the woman's part. When asked, he later clarified to us that the misunderstanding was on his own side, saying "Honestly, I should have gotten over myself right at the start, simply owned that I misunderstood, and apologized. In the end, that's what happened, and I walked away from that with a pretty profound sense of how to go forward with my thinking about the personal space of those I don't know or know only in passing."

Both women faced ongoing pressure from Fannon, with one woman the experiences going on for a number of years after the initial convention meeting. In both cases he attempted to continue contact via electronic means with varying degrees of success. A number of screen shots from electronic conversations with Fannon were shared with me by both women.

Diane Bulkeley was willing to come forward and speak on the record of her incidents with Fannon. Fannon made seemingly innocent, and yet inappropriate comments about her body and what he wanted to do with her. She is part of a charity organization that had Fannon as a guest. What happened to her was witnessed by another woman with whom I spoke about that weekend. As Bulkeley heard some things, and her witness others, their experiences are interwoven to describe what happened. Bulkeley described this first encounter at the hotel's elevators: "We were on the floor where our rooms were to go downstairs to the convention floor. I was wearing a tank top and shirt over it that showed my cleavage. He was staring at my chest and said how much he loved my shirt and that I should wear it more often as it makes him hot. For the record I can't help my cleavage is there." Bulkeley went on to describe her mental state towards this "Paying a lady a compliment is one thing, but when you make a direct comment about their chest we have a problem."

Later on in the same day, while unloading some boxes for the convention there was another incident with Fannon. Bulkeley described this: "Well, [the witness and her husband] had to move their stuff from a friends airplane hangar (we all use as storage for cars and stuff) to a storage until next to their house. Apparently Sean, while at the hanger, made grunt noises about my tank top (it was 80 outside) while Tammy was in the truck. I did not see it. But she told me about it. Then as we were unloading the truck at the new facility Sean kept looking down my shirt and saying I have a great view etc. Her husband said to him to knock it off. I rolled my eyes, gave him a glare and continued to work. I did go and put on my event day jacket (light weight jacket) to cover up a little."

The witness, who was in the truck with Fannon, said that he "kept leering down at Diane, glancing down her shirt and making suggestive sounds." The witness said that Fannon commented "'I'm liking the view from up here.'"

Bulkeley talked about how Fannon continued his behavior later on in a restaurant, having dinner with some of the guests of the event. Fannon made inappropriate comments about her body and embarrassed her in front of the other, making her feel uncomfortable throughout the dinner.

Bulkeley said that Fannon also at one point touched her hair without asking, and smelled it as well. "[Fannon] even would smell my long hair. He begged me to not cut it off at a charity function that was part of the weekend's event." She said that he also pressed his pelvis tightly against her body while hugging her. These incidents occurred at a convention during the summer of 2017.

Fannon denies these events. "The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety."

When asked for comment, and being informed that this story was being compiled Fannon commented "I do not recall any such circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." He went on to say "The only time I recall having ever been counseled or otherwise spoken to about my behavior in such matters is the Gamers Giving/Total Escape Games situation discussed above. The leader of the organization at that time spoke to me specifically, asked me to be aware that it had been an issue, and requested I be aware of it in the future. It was then formally dropped, and that was the end of it until this time."

There were further reports; however, we have respected the wishes of those women who asked to remain anonymous for fear of online harassment. In researching this article, I talked to multiple women and other witnesses.

About future actions against the alleged behaviors he also said "It is easy, after all, to directly attack and excise obviously predatory and harassing behavior. It is much more difficult to point out and correct behavior that falls within more subtle presentations, and it's more difficult to get folks to see their actions as harmful when they had no intention to cause harm, based on their assumptions of what is and isn't appropriate. It's good for us to look at the core assumptions that lead to those behaviors and continue to challenge them. That's how real and lasting change within society is achieved."

Fannon's weekly column will no longer be running on E.N. World.

Have you suffered harassment at the hands of someone, industry insider or otherwise, at a gaming convention? If you would like to tell your story, you can reach out to me via social media about any alleged incidents. We can speak confidentially, but I will have to know the identity of anyone that I speak with.

This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear.

More conventions are rolling out harassment policies for guests and attendees of their conventions. Not only does this help to protect attendees from bad behavior, but it can also help to protect conventions from bad actors within the various communities that gather at our conventions. As incidents of physical and sexual harassment are becoming more visible, it becomes more and more clear that something needs to be done.

additional editorial contributions by Morrus
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are really only 3 choices:

1) Always believe the accusers.
Result: Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.

2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.
Result: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.

3) Refuse to pass judgement at all.
Result: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.

So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the world and what price you are willing to pay for it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is hardly investigative. There was no mention of the fact that Diane Bulkeley's witness is facing disciplinary action within the Gamers Giving board for their actions against Fannon (including creating a false story of harassment), nor the fact that Diane Bulkeley had actively been seeking a romantic relationship with him (per various witnesses) and had him over at her house and celebrated his DMing a game for her after the supposed incident.


Not only that, you aren't furthering the conversation so much as going after one individual in the culture. You didn't fully investigate your main incident (just went off of "there are many witnesses" without providing statements from any), you haven't listen any other ongoing issues (to which there are many in the gaming community), and you haven't helped with the conversation. You have lampooned one individual with a "juicy story" and claimed that you are helping women and men feel free to speak out and seek help.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
[MENTION=6803203]DemoMonkey[/MENTION] There's also the question of quantity of evidence. For me, multiple independent allegations easily crosses my threshold for everyday belief. I believe lots of other things on far less evidence. Sadly, it's not as if sexual harassment is an extraordinary or unlikely occurrence in our society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
A matter of clarity: Sean wasn’t fired.

Sean quit posting his column of his own volition three weeks before this article was posted, when he found out it was being worked on. Totally understandable.

I did confirm with him a week or so ago that that was appropriate, but it’s not like I was in any position to make that decision.

As a further point of clarification, his column was a voluntary reposting of his week’s Picks of the Day on his own website. He wasn’t under contract, and he wasn’t paid for it, because it wasn’t unique content. You can still find his column on social media, his website, and other places he posts it.

Just so we’re all on the same page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zak S

Guest
Sean Patrick Fannon has objectively, provably and repeatedly harassed people online so it's not a surprise he did it irl too.

He's openly said he gets emotional and does things he knows he shouldn't.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
There are really only 3 choices:

1) Always believe the accusers.
Result: Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men.

2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.
Result: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women.

3) Refuse to pass judgement at all.
Result: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2.

So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the world and what price you are willing to pay for it.

Ah, the fallacy of the false dilemma. Presenting a few select options as if they are the only possible choices.

Sad.
 

Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? Peter Parker saying "I don't want to go." sad? What level of sad are we talking here?

And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary.

However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? Peter Parker saying "I don't want to go." sad? What level of sad are we talking here?

And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary.

However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened.

Your position is sadly lacking in both personal judgement and common sense.

"Always believe them or never believe them. That's it, nothing else!"

Obviously bullcrap and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

Option 3: Use a little intelligence an look at the history of the allegations, the accuser, and the accused. Actually consider it and judge each case on it's own merits instead of blindly backing one side or the other.

A single incident several years ago with the accusation based solely on hearsay? I'm not going to put much stock in it.

A recent incident, with multiple eye witnesses and recordings from cameras? I'm much more inclined to believe it, while allowing for the possibility of a serious misunderstanding.

Multiple incidents, over several years, with several different people coming forward to confirm them? I'm much more likely to believe that.

Does the incident consist of verbal harassment (bad, but one or two incidents could possibly be written off as poor judgement or drunken mistakes - several incidents not so much) - or did it involve stalking and/or physical harassment? That's something to be taken very seriously and should be reported to the authorities.

Usually by the time something like this gets reported as news or goes viral on media, there's a clear pattern emerging with multiple incidents - or one egregious incident with video and eye witnesses. But sometimes it's just hearsay and you should reserve judgement until more facts come to light.
 


yardornate

First Post
The most stunning and saddening part of these comments is the lack of expressed interest or concern for those women who have indicated they've been harassed. They are the parties that have been hurt and wronged in this experience.

Those women have a right to express their stories, and it's my hope that Fannon has expressed an interest in finding the opportunity to directly address those three individuals in a thoughtful, mindful, and supportive way that validates their experiences. Not just reflection, not just for show, but because those women's experiences matter.

The other odd thing here is - Why did EN-World not just remove Fannon? Instead they took this "opportunity" to use their very well known platform to "address sexual harassment" while also sharing a very personal and public account of one of their contributors (syndicated or original content aside). What was the motive here on EN World's part? I am (obviously) not a regular to this site, but this feels like an intentional choice. Was this an opportunity to look like a thoughtful site rooting out harassment? Or was it to help distance EN World from a very unpleasant situation?

This article in no way addresses the experience of women at conventions and how to improve that unfortunate culture - which is the sort of thing I'd hope to see. It's about Fannon and EN World, with what this reader feels is a veil of "oh by the way, some gals were upset."
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top