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

Jeanneliza

First Post
It is a terrible catch 22, where if you say nothing the behaviour continues and the person might not even realise it is unwelcome. If you say something you risk a violent response.

Which is why mediation is necessary. A person can go quietly to such a person without creating a public scene that risks escalation. The Con can speak to the alleged harasser quietly, and indeed point out to this person is risking public humiliation of it continues, if that is something they fear.

The best options are going to include clear policy statements with a reporting system that focus' on safety AND de-escalation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bagpuss

Legend
It's not that hard; it's actually (in terms of understanding issues with Drow) a fairly famous example because it's pretty easy to see.

So the issue with Drow what then? That one artist, once got the skin tone wrong so they looked a little bit African. Seriously what is the issue with Drow? There is an issue with that illustration, most likely from a poor artist brief, but what is the issue with Drow as a whole?

Or at least your issue with them?
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
I guess I'll chime in on this topic too, why not?

I'm not a woman, so take this as a request to seek counsel from one of the women who may be reading the thread.

So being a man and liking to "dress up" I do it for the following reasons.
1. I am fortunate enough to have an athletic build.
2. I am fortunate enough to have the cash to support decent clothing.
3. When I dress well, I get treated differently than when I dress like a slob.
4. When the person treating me differently is a woman, I'm aware the interaction is different and I know why, but I never feel like the woman is being a jerk.

Invert this to a woman dressing up and it seems like there's a real double standard that I don't really understand from a woman's perspective.
1. Women's clothing tends to show a lot more skin.
2. A lot of guys seem to be missing some social graces.

I am not complaining about being able to see a beautiful woman. I just know that I was taught that there were rules and I always took the core of them to be, "if you want to be able to see nice things and be with a nice girl, you need to treat them like they're doing you a favor by being with you and not treat them poorly."

Now I'm in my mid 40s and that either puts me on the old side or rapidly approaching it as it pertains to the younger crowd. I'm also aware that harassment has always been a problem, but I've never asked a woman her point of view on it, because as far as I'm aware, I've not done it. (though this thread is making me think about it and wonder if I've been daft.)

Thanks,
KB
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
So the issue with Drow what then? That one artist, once got the skin tone wrong so they looked a little bit African. Seriously what is the issue with Drow? There is an issue with that illustration, most likely from a poor artist brief, but what is the issue with Drow as a whole?

Or at least your issue with them?

The issue I reckon, is that during that time period there would have been no non evil dark skinned human(oid) characters in the art work.
 


Jeanneliza

First Post
KB fair enough. I'll cover some of that as best I am able.

First there is societal conditioning. This affects both genders, don't get me wrong, but your questions addressed the female perspective. From the time we are infants when our parents wanted to dress us up they invariably put us in dresses. It is a societal expectation, though less so now, that dressing up for a female involves, well, dresses. (I am one that think they suck.)
Evidence, how many times during the last presidential election was one candidates clothes described or addressed as opposed to the other?
Dress for success, this applies to both genders, but for women that usually implies feminine yet businesslike. Again watch news reports regarding successful women and note how often their clothes are the subject as opposed to their abilities.
Women's clothing tend to show a lot more skin.
In our society this has been a trend only for about 100 years. Prior to that a woman showing to much skin was immediately classified as immoral. The vestiges of those attitudes still inform some underlying assumptions today, not excluding the belief that how a woman dresses has something to do with her being assaulted.
Further we simultaneously demonize societies or beliefs that require women to cover.
Self-esteem. Same reason men like to dress nice, when you believe you look good it translates to feeling good. It doesn't imply that we only feel good about ourselves when we look good to men. Women dress as much to impress each OTHER as to impress men.
I am over 60, I have watched styles evolve, bikini's and mini-skirts were part of my generations rebellion. Some styles you see are the same thing, rebellion, rebellion against the misconceptions and perceptions of the past that forced limits on our choices. (For the record there is a company for women's clothing line that advertise under Wardrobe Rebellion).
Now I have worked in male dominated industries most of my working life. When I worked with cops I wore the exact same uniform they did. That did NOT prevent harassment.
When I worked with construction workers because of my training in civil engineering I wore jeans, work shirts and no make up. That did NOT prevent harassment.
When I was in theater studio, for class and rehearsal we dressed for movement and comfort, often leggings, plain t-shirts, sweats, we had one girl that came to rehearsal's in her flannel pajamas. On stage, well costumes were determined by the director and costumer designer, suitable to and defining the character.
But now I am old, I still dress for comfort. I have a lifestyle that allows me that choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
[MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION] -

I hadn't thought of the immorality angle coming off of Victorian-era (and prior) ethics or the social effects of Islamic tradition. Likewise, since my ego insulates me against caring about looking awesome in the workplace or for other men generally, I hadn't thought about women impressing each other with their wardrobe.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.
KB
 

My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are not black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.

Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.

Now, does this parallel racist views? Absolutely. Their is no doubt that western Europeans felt that their lighter color skin tone was proof they were good, and therefore those most different from them, with dark skin, must be bad or less.

But, it is also a very traditional (which does not mean valid or accepted in current society) and understood meme or tool to indicate what was desired; that this group of elves are bad. This is a stereotype. One of hundred or thousands that make up much of this game with play. Stereotypes are useful in order to communicate information ins very concise manner. Stereotypes are not actually accurate in the real world, and often not even in our fantasy ones. But, they are useful.

Stop worrying, and arguing about, if drow being black is due to early racism in the game. It really doesn't matter. What matters is how are we going to protect people from harassment in our community? How do we (as a society) educate our members on simple things like "no", and how to deal with rejection in a healthy manner so that people don't feel bullied or victimized because they are told no.
 

Enkhidu

Explorer
My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are not black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.

Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.

Quibble: Draw have black skin because they began as a (in my opinion - bad) take on svartalfar (literally, "black elves). Blame Roger Moore for the divine curse angle, which only came about after their initial appearance(s) in G1-3.

Seriously - the dark skin of drow is based on an idea about a thousand years old. Any other misbehavior (and its there) is due to stupid, horny young men.
 

evileeyore

Mrrrph
Zelazny and the Amber novels are on the list.
You're really going to point to Amber and it's rampant sexism as 'progressive'? Huh, never would have suspected that.



Well yes if you only look at the colour of their skin.
Too be fair, that is what racists do.

Most people try to judge on more than just skin colour.
I'm not sure 'most people' aren't racist. Certianly by some standards... everything is racist.



That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"
Yes exactly! That was always my biggest problem, a strong heirarchy in a "Choatic" society? Err, what mate?



Well the stripperific clothes never bothered me :D, being the target audience and all, but boob armour, or obvious gaps in armour and high heels on wilderness or warrior types can really set me off on a rant.
I never liked the stripperific armor*... and bare midriffs on a Fighter? NO!

* Okay, for a brief period of time between say 12 and 14 I found it tantalizing. After that it was just nonsensical to me.



Is it that David C. Sutherland III name isn't mentioned even though he co-wrote Queen of the Demonweb pits?
Thank you! Sutherland never gets enough credit.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top