Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done

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.

View attachment 96985​

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

 

[Sadras]

Sadras will *still* call you an alarmist.

Sadras ended that conversation by XPing Elfcrusher. Sadras is unsure whether Riley37 noticed or even cared to notice.

Sadras hopes, for all concerned, that Riley37 notices and stops the rhetoric.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As I wrote before, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog.

My litter-mates do.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Riley37]

How would anonymous reporting work at a con or store though? You send an email to someone about someone else's behavior? But, then, the email can be tracked back to you. I had thought that anonymous meant that while the con organizers would know who you are, because you talked to them to make the complaint, you privacy would be respected and no one else would be told.

I'm not sure how that would actually work in practice to have harassment complaints be totally anonymous.

First, tip of the hat for good faith questions about proposed methods, and their practical implementations. Disagreements about *how* to discourage harassment, are at least a conversation among those of us who agree that we *want* to discourage harassment.

Your questions can, fortunately, be addressed! So easily that I am tempted to snark.

At the high end of the tech spectrum, there are ways to create messages anonymously. If the con has a website, then the website can have a form for sending feedback to con staff. That form can leave the "prove your real name" (or "provide your con registration number") elements as optional. If an exchange of messages is useful, then there are ways to allow "burner" usernames, user accounts just for that exchange, which have no verification other than the burner account's password. Further details are beyond the scope of this reply, but talk with your InfoTech people.

At the low end of the tech spectrum, there is a well-established, robust technology of "writing on paper with a pen", which does not have the routing, and thus the trace techniques, of email. Putting the paper into an envelope, and dropping that envelope into a CON SUGGESTIONS AND FEEDBACK box, is a viable delivery method.

On another hand, at either end of the tech spectrum, full anonymity reduces accountability, which in turn allows for bad actors to abuse a well-intentioned process. Con staff therefore should exercise good judgement in weighing any anonymous messages. Maybe just "hmm, someone anonymously accused Riley37 of making an inappropriately suggestive joke about glagtery, so let's keep an eye on him, and an ear open for any other mentions of him". Or "The note says that he made the joke at the Why Worldbuilding Is Bad workshop. I think Hussar was there, so let's ask Hussar if he remembers Riley37 saying anything in questionable taste."

If someone on con staff found me, took me aside, and said "Hey Riley37, have you been joking about glagtery, and in what tone, and to whom?" then I would answer that question. I would not take the question as an Inquisition; I understand that con staff have a reasonable interest in learning more about what happened. I might even realize "oh, I told that joke to a person who enjoyed it, but there were others present, including a woman in sexy cosplay and her teenage daughter, and I should have saved that joke for elsewhere; I could be more cautious about possible misunderstandings."

Alternate scenario: "no, I've carefully avoided the topic of glagtery, why do you ask?" At this point, con staff could theorize that I'm denying misbehavior, AND theorize that someone with an axe to grind has made a false accusation, and hold both theories in the category of "unverified". If con staff know of someone with an axe to grind, then con staff can also keep a closer eye on that person, insofar as they have the resources to do so, on top of all their other tasks.

Anyways, you've made posts about ways that people routinely handle accusations about theft and so forth, and how those methods also apply to harassment accusations, so I doubt you need further explanation from me. You mentioned the scenario in which the complainer talks to one person on staff, who then describes the complaint to others as necessary, without specifying the complainer's name; and in general, I see that as the easier scenario to handle.

Here's to practical questions, towards shared goals, asked with the hope of useful answers. Here's to methods which result in cons which are safer, and feel safer, for more people, than the status quo.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Quick aside, since I must have missed this in the past 900+ comments.

What is glagtery? Is that a placeholder for something else?

Yes. It is a nonsense word (used initially some posts back) to refer to some unspecified act, group, or device that might be used offensively, ostensibly to avoid getting caught up in the specifics of said act, group, or device.

 

[Sadras]

A lot of it is complicated, but IMO must of it boils down to entitlement. Most of the problems arise when a man feels entitled to the woman (her body, her attention, her romance, the ability to ogle her, etc.), and doesn't respect her boundaries and her communication, both verbal and non-verbal.

True, Elf Witch's experience at the Trek Con is telling. Who knows what that creep is up to now.

 

[kenmarable]

I'll reiterate that I think it's a great idea, especially for the larger cons that can probably afford it, to hire the services of a trained Title IX Coordinator/Investigator, both to help train staff and volunteers, craft policy and messaging, and help coordinate investigations and responses on-site. The smaller cons won't be able to afford that kind of service but with the bigger cons serving as models a lot of what could be gained from this will start to trickle down.

Also, re: feeding our most recent troll, but at what point after reading the word "castrati" did it still occur to anyone that this was a person arguing in good faith that deserved anyone's time, energy, and attention?

Well, at least we had a few pages of productive discussion before a troll managed to derail the entire conversation. Pretty textbook case of it and it worked as it always does. *sigh*

Anyway... signal boosting Gradine here - conventions need experts. Absolutely, 100%. Properly] handling this stuff is complicated, and just because a convention is good at running a convention does not mean they are good at handling harassment issues (and no, it's not common sense). That's also a very good point about the stores and smaller cons learning from the larger ones, however, part of that would be the larger conventions having to actually share their knowledge and procedures, and sadly, many are barely even posting a public policy let alone helping other conventions learn from their internal procedures.

So should the experts do more to get their information out there cheaper? Experts deserve to be paid for their expertise, but also tiny little LocalCon is probably asking volunteers to bring in their own tablecloths and sheets for vendor tables, and a Title IX or other expert just isn't remotely feasible.

Should the industry as a whole instead be the ones to fund experts to produce guidelines, training, and such for all conventions and FLGS to adopt?

 

[kenmarable]

Re the OP, and I do take eg Elf Witch's points seriously...

One thing I noticed about the Gencon policy is that it does not give a definition of harassment. Legal definitions typically involve repeated inappropriate behaviour, so following someone around oggling them could well count - and if asked to desist certainly would count IMO. An undesired sexual comment usually does not meet legal definitions of harassment.

Would it be beneficial for Convention policies to give at least an indicative idea of what constitutes harassment?

There are some behaviours that the perpetrator clearly knows are not welcome or appropriate, and these perpetrators are not going to be deterred by any code. But there is a lot of marginal activity too (such as some of what SPF is accused of) that may be appropriate in some contexts but not in others. And social mores change too, behaviour typical in 1978 may be seen as reprehensible in 2018.

Would an indicative list of behaviour considered inappropriate be helpful to deter the marginal cases? On the evidence given, I don't believe SPF considered his behaviour to amount to harassment, and if you want it stopped then giving examples of undesired behaviour could be helpful and perhaps create greater certainty.

I believe some examples are necessary. In addition to helping potential harassers avoid the edge cases, especially with gross pick-up culture out there, one reason not often mentioned is to help inform the victims. Since sexual harassment has not been taken very seriously for so long, there are many instances of someone feeling harassed but doubting whether those in charge would agree. So at a convention, an incident might occur that isn't as blatant as groping, but the person feels harassed and the convention would consider it harassment, however, without the convention stating that as an example, the victim might reasonably be skeptical and not report it. The history of society and our industry in particular isn't real stellar in creating confidence in victims that they will be taken seriously unless a case is blatantly egregious (and sometimes even then it still hasn't been taken seriously!).

Plus add in being a witness to a situation like that, and there can be even more doubt about whether they should do something or not. Women have been indoctrinated to not be confrontational, so even watching their reaction might not be enough to clarify whether it was harassment or not if you are a witness. Too many situations can fall into an area of doubt, which historically usually leads to massive underreporting.

So I think a list of examples is absolutely necessary, not just to curtail potential harassers who are either uninformed or want to push the boundaries, but to tell potential witnesses and victims that the convention will take reports seriously even if they aren't over-the-top egregious.