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

 

[Maxperson]

For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.

That would be annoying, yes. What it wouldn't be, though, is harassment.

So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem.

This I agree with. They need to be educated and the behavior needs to stop.

Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.

The penalty for being annoying shouldn't go up just because some people are afraid to say something about it. I'm also curious how an intermediate agent even comes on the scene to mediate if nobody says anything about the annoying person. A mediator would have to be called to the scene.

 

[Caliburn101]

If I see any of this sexist behaviour at Games Expo in a couple of weeks I am going to call it out loudly, in front of the person doing it, right there.

The kind of people who indulge in this kind or crapola are fundamentally cowards, and don't like the light shined on their behaviour.

Hell, I might take a portable floodlight and loudspeaker!!

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah but I suspect that depiction comes from the whole spider aspect of Drow, and the fact that a lot of female spiders are larger than the male, and will often eat the males before, after or even during an attempt to mate. Rather than being based on a human matriarchal society, or some attempt to be sexist.

Right. The matriarchal aspect, as well as the color of drow skin, have nothing to do with any real world racial or gender issues. I think finding issues with drow based on race and gender are examples of the type mentioned above; the activist being offended that chocolate milk is on the bottom shelf at the grocery store.

 

[Umbran]

Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying.

For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.

So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying...

The policy should be kept in context of how the event applies the policy, in a real-world, practical sense. There's always this message that "OMG, someone is going to get banned from the con for life because of an innocent mistake!" That's probably not the most likely result.

When I was involved in reporting an incident a couple of years ago, the con had collected *several* reports, and put them together to establish a pattern of behavior, before they finally booted the perpetrator. For the "annoying" clause, if you are "annoying" the con might do the stunningly intelligent thing of giving you a warning - this would significantly mitigate the "don't know what is annoying" issue, as the Convention will tell you, and give you an opportunity to speak with the staff about it. If you then establish a pattern of not being able to avoid annoying people at the convention, they might choose to take other action.

This goes for most elements of the policy, not just "annoying". If you make racist comments at a gaming table, or follow a woman around and not take "no" for an answer, you might expect the convention to warn you before they outright eject or ban you.

You know, like how most of the moderation on these boards happen -unless you're egregious, you get a warning of how you're over the line before we boot you from a thread or ban you.

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, now you've said something I can agree with! Common ground at last!

Well, I *guess* that's agreement, of a sort. I'm actually rather obedient, whenever you order me to do something, that I already told you I was doing. (Were you unclear on whom I meant, by "those who make that decision"?)

No, I was pointing out unfortunate tactic of certain members yourself included, of rather than debating, relabelling discussion as harassment, false labelling the opposition then crying harassment and calling for moderation.

No, I was not identifying myself as Alt-Right I was calling out the inferences that you have made.

Although I am pretty sure you understood that.

--------------

I do think there is a concern if harassment is extended beyond the more legal definition.

If you say harassment is just being annoying I feel that's too broad. I find some people's laugher annoying, or people stacking dice while we are playing (introducing a farcical example).

Fannon's actions would fall under the legal (using UK law which is probably harsher than US in this case, but it's the one I'm more familiar with) definition. Of course being a private convention you don't need to establish legal proof to act, which is helpful in these circumstances because it is hard to prove. A few of important clauses in the legal description of harassment are

A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Also

In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

A being the harasser and B being the victim in this case.

Protected characteristics in the UK are - age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

So getting annoyed over dice stacking would fail because it doesn't target a protected characteristic, but also because it isn't reasonable to assume it violates my dignity or creates a hostile environment.

Thankfully a number of harassment policies I've seen tend to call out aspects of the legal definition (such as protected characteristics) as examples, most also add the clause "not limited to" when listing examples, which it is fine with a private venue, and also because if you do spell stuff out in detail there will be people that look for the loopholes.


--------------

More seriously though if you do stack your dice, don't get annoyed when I bang the table.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Kobold Boots]

So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.

1. Harassment in a gaming environment is not "beat up your four month old" level abuse.
2. Therefore it's wholly inappropriate to bring into the conversation to reinforce whatever point you're making.
3. I'm personally disgusted that the comparison ever made it to the thread. It's a red line.
4. If you must know the answer to the question you've asked, do the research on the article before using it, instead of just posting a news link.

That is the message (1 & 2) I want delivered to you based on what I wrote. There is no justification you could present as a retort that would be logical so I'm ending the conversation on this point between you and I with this post.

Be well.
KB

 

[Maxperson]

Eh .... then again ...

Look, a lot of things can be hard to see because you're just too used to it. Playing Drizzt isn't bad because it's necessarily racist, for example; it's bad because it sucks like a gnome paladin.

But there can be systemic issues lurking beneath the surface; the whole "dark race equals evil" to start with. And per this artwork, sometimes the implicit is explicit. It doesn't mean that someone who thinks drow are cool is a racist*, but it does mean that sometimes it helps to pay attention to these sorts of things.

TLDR; acknowledging something can be problematic isn't the same as banishing it, and it doesn't mean that someone who enjoys it is a racist. I happen to really like HP Lovecraft; but I also know that he was a raging racist, and there are stories of his that I would not, and could not, allow kids to read until the were old enough to properly contextualize them.

*Just deeply disturbed, in a "I like dex builds, rapiers, and eating paste" kind of way.

That cover isn't bad because drow are black or matriarchal. Those two things aren't the issue as I mentioned in my post. What's wrong with that cover is that it is portraying women in a sexist way like they did to pretty much ALL females, regardless of race or color during that time period. The wrong of that cover isn't a drow thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Eltab]

Edit: original post was reaction to something said prior to Umbran's post #1249 in orange ink.