• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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.

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

...

If you don't know where you came from, how do you know where you're going?
...

And that's the problem when you attempt to take Hussar's reasonable suggestion and just move on; if people wish to disregard the structural issues of the past that were glaringly obvious, how can we address the structural issues of the present or future, which may be a little more subtle?
...

I love D&D, and I am comfortable with many of the stereotypes that are employed ... in a game. I haven't excised drow because of racism and sexism (I just did it because they suck). But if we can't even acknowledge, in a healthy, non-finger pointing way, the systemic issues of the past, how can we possibly move forward?

When I have advocated in this thread for moving on it is not because I think the past is irrelevant (I've added thoughts on historical relevance). I advocate moving on because "we've beat that dead horse enough".

Yes,history and context are important, critical even. But continuing to spend time on the past and every possible nuance doesn't help with the current or future enough to warrant continued discussion.

Diminishing returns. Opportunity Value. More important things to discuss.

...
What disturbs me the most about the fact it isn't yet dealt with is that despite reasonable policies being in existence for quite a long time now, there is still a fear of acting.

How much more so must be the fear on the part of victims that their complaints will be equally dismissed, ignored and passive-aggressively challenged?... and how difficult must it be for women to know who is raising a genuine concern about mislabelling alleged perpetrators and who is cleverly throwing cold water on the issue for ulterior motives?

I have to agree with this. We, the observers, MUST act when we see something wrong. Even if it is at risk to ourselves. To do otherwise is to allow such behavior to continue. And, who is in more danger if the behavior is called out? The victim, or an observer?

Had one of the recent shooters classmates been the one to call him out and not the girl herself, maybe, just maybe the results would have been different.

If it becomes so common that unacceptable behavior is called out by each and every observer, victims will no longer have to fear public events. People will become educated on what is and is not acceptable behavior. If another party had interjected in that mediators sexist act and said, "She's a lawyer, let me introduce you to Bob, he's our assistant." But, but allowing the sexist act, the harassment of the girl, the locker room talk, each and every observer is stating to that person; "This behavior is acceptable under these conditions."

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is doing what is right despite fear.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
When I have advocated in this thread for moving on it is not because I think the past is irrelevant (I've added thoughts on historical relevance). I advocate moving on because "we've beat that dead horse enough".

Yes,history and context are important, critical even. But continuing to spend time on the past and every possible nuance doesn't help with the current or future enough to warrant continued discussion.

Diminishing returns. Opportunity Value. More important things to discuss.



I have to agree with this. We, the observers, MUST act when we see something wrong. Even if it is at risk to ourselves. To do otherwise is to allow such behavior to continue. And, who is in more danger if the behavior is called out? The victim, or an observer?

Had one of the recent shooters classmates been the one to call him out and not the girl herself, maybe, just maybe the results would have been different.

If it becomes so common that unacceptable behavior is called out by each and every observer, victims will no longer have to fear public events. People will become educated on what is and is not acceptable behavior. If another party had interjected in that mediators sexist act and said, "She's a lawyer, let me introduce you to Bob, he's our assistant." But, but allowing the sexist act, the harassment of the girl, the locker room talk, each and every observer is stating to that person; "This behavior is acceptable under these conditions."

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is doing what is right despite fear.

1. I agree that in a life or death situation where what is seen is really clear, that one should act to protect people regardless of the outcomes.
2. I don't agree that using the shooter scenario is a good way to reinforce an opinion about sexual harassment. I called out Riley for using a glaringly bad example earlier and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call out your less egregious flaw here.

If you're going to support your argument with something and want to sound reasonable, at least try to keep things relative.

Courage is doing what's right despite fear.
What's right is often determined by greatest good for greatest number of people.
If what's right puts my family at risk, my priority is my family, not what adherence to social elevation might suggest.
Then courage is doing what saves my self (if they depend on me to subsist) despite what I'd want to be doing. Because I'm the one not acting and getting the stinkeye from people.

Idealism is great but if the down level expression of following it to it's eventual outcome actually hurts people who aren't involved in my crusade, it's not wise.

Sorry to be a bucket of water.
KB
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Why? Does drinking have anything to do with playing games or engaging with nerdy stuff? Does banning it at cons exclude people from attending?

Does it literally exclude anyone? No. But it would make the con a lot less attractive to many of us who enjoy a good, adult beverage with our hobbies. I don't and won't live in a dry county. I don't and won't live in a dry town. I am not particularly interested in going to a dry gaming con either. I'm no alcoholic but I enjoy a good drink.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Does it literally exclude anyone? No. But it would make the con a lot less attractive to many of us who enjoy a good, adult beverage with our hobbies. I don't and won't live in a dry county. I don't and won't live in a dry town. I am not particularly interested in going to a dry gaming con either. I'm no alcoholic but I enjoy a good drink.

I don’t understand. Why would a dry con be less appealing? You go there to drink?

I also enjoy a good drink, but I have no problem not drinking when I go to a place where the owners or organizers don’t want intoxicants, because it’s super easy to just go somewhere and have a good time without drinking, and it’s heir right to decide whether or not to allow intoxicants at their function.

It’s also super normal to be barred from drinking at things where kids are in attendance.

Also, why is the desire to drink at this specific place on this specific weekend more important than the right of others to not have to deal with the lowered inhibitions and thus increased inappropriate behavior that nearly always comes with drinking by large numbers of people? If makin a con “dry” filters out those who aren’t willing to engage in a social event without drinking...good?
 

Sadras

Legend
Why? Does drinking have anything to do with playing games or engaging with nerdy stuff? Does banning it at cons exclude people from attending?

No, it's more that being able to consume alcohol is a privelege/liberty and taking that away, well that would be removal of such privilege.

Engaging with you on why people might like to drink at a con is neither here nor there. I am talking about stripping away privileges that currently exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Particle_Man

Explorer
It's equally criminal to accuse someone of something they didn't do. (slander) So your position isn't exactly on the high horse you're speaking from in the above reply.

I can't help noticing that once again some posters seem far more concerned about hypothetical false accusations than about real harassment.

Let's take this apart some more. You were worried about some scenario where you have saucy sexy talk with your wife in public, and someone calls you out as a sexual offender in public.

That is not, in my opinion, what Caliburn was going to call out. Caliburn made it clear he will call out much more clear-cut cases of harassment. Presumably he can tell the difference between that and consensual saucy banter. Thus you are safe from both an accusation of sexual harrassment after the latter and, presumably, a charge of physical assault after you physically assault this hypothetical accuser.

In addition, let us look at what "calling out" amounts to. It can vary from "Hey, dude, not cool!" to "Why are you grabbing that 15 year old girl by the breasts and rubbing yourself against her after she asks you to stop? Stop that!" I assume that in the former calling out there would be plenty of time for your wife to step in and go "its ok, just saucy banter, totally consensual" and that you would agree that in the latter case someone *should* step in and call it out as sexual harassment.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
I don’t understand. Why would a dry con be less appealing? You go there to drink?

I also enjoy a good drink, but I have no problem not drinking when I go to a place where the owners or organizers don’t want intoxicants, because it’s super easy to just go somewhere and have a good time without drinking, and it’s heir right to decide whether or not to allow intoxicants at their function.

It’s also super normal to be barred from drinking at things where kids are in attendance.

Also, why is the desire to drink at this specific place on this specific weekend more important than the right of others to not have to deal with the lowered inhibitions and thus increased inappropriate behavior that nearly always comes with drinking by large numbers of people? If makin a con “dry” filters out those who aren’t willing to engage in a social event without drinking...good?

I don't go to cons to drink but I do go to enjoy myself playing games, checking out the new games in the dealer hall, watching some movies if there's a media room, and sharing fellowship with other attendees - often in the hotel bar with an adult beverage in hand. As an adult, I act responsibly and expect the same of others around me - but I also expect to be able to enjoy the privileges of being an adult rather than be nannied because of someone else's irresponsibility. I've got plenty of opportunities to go to conventions that don't ban alcohol - why would I bother to go to one that does? Cons are more fun when I get to play games, watch movies, and share fellowship when I can also have a beer or get a drink with my wife as we unwind from a long day of gaming and walking around the con.
 

(Bolded text my emphasis.)

1. I agree that in a life or death situation where what is seen is really clear, that one should act to protect people regardless of the outcomes.
2. I don't agree that using the shooter scenario is a good way to reinforce an opinion about sexual harassment. I called out Riley for using a glaringly bad example earlier and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call out your less egregious flaw here.

If you're going to support your argument with something and want to sound reasonable, at least try to keep things relative.

What's right is often determined by greatest good for greatest number of people.
If what's right puts my family at risk, my priority is my family, not what adherence to social elevation might suggest.
Then courage is doing what saves my self (if they depend on me to subsist) despite what I'd want to be doing. Because I'm the one not acting and getting the stinkeye from people.

Idealism is great but if the down level expression of following it to it's eventual outcome actually hurts people who aren't involved in my crusade, it's not wise.

Sorry to be a bucket of water.
KB

You make it clear that self preservation and self interest are more important than, or are your ideals. That's fine. You are allowed to allow selfishness to drive your actions.

I will quote a translation of Martin Niemoller. You can all read it, contemplate it, and do your own research on the implications.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 

This whole dry con thing baffles me. I don't go to a lot of cons, but I've been to enough (Gen Con, various Comic Cons, etc) and I have never seen alcohol for sale (except outside the con at license bars etc). I've never seen anyone walking around with a drink in their hand. I've never seen a person drunk at the con.

So, in my experience, every con is already dry. What am I missing?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top