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

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
“Hearsay” is a legal term regarding the admissibility of statements into evidence in a court case. Zero relationship to journalism.

Journalists have their own standards: ideally, they report direct testimony of individuals and/or information supported by 3+ witnesses. Reporting someone’s accusations that another comitted a criminal act is perfectly legit, even if it cannot be deemed true later down the road. (In which case, the journalist should report that fact.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EthanSental

Legend
Supporter
One of the first bit of advice our marriage counselor gave my wife and I was to not use "You" statements as it tends to set the listener on the defensive to strike back verbally. Happening a bunch in this thread between various people a they single and an use You at each other.

Cool it for a bit and moderate ourselves for a change? Thanks!
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
Good question. ... And unless you’re talking about an offender who is a minor
a) Thank you.

b) In this instance (the subject of OP article), we aren't. I'd be more willing to cut an underage awkward teen more slack (having been one myself) because he hasn't had time - I hope - to rack up a string of incidents. Grown adults get normal slack, and the amount of slack gets shorter and shorter as their trail of incidents gets longer and longer.

I have this mental image of a Convention Guest being told, "Yeah, we heard about your reputation. We'll let you in, but here's this sweater with a Big Scarlet Letter (instead of the 'con logo); you have to wear it every minute you are on our floor."
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
There is also the issue of “celebrity “. In law, prominent persons are essentially deemed to have inserted themselves into the spotlight, and as such, public persons don’t have quite the same privacy protections as private citizens. Whether one is to be deemed public or private is a matter for a court to decide on an individual basis.

IOW, while the subject of this article may not be high-profile enough to be considered a traditional celebrity, captain of industry, politician, etc., in mainstream society, within the context of our hobby and the media outlets that cover it, he may well be deemed a public figure.
 

One of the first bit of advice our marriage counselor gave my wife and I was to not use "You" statements as it tends to set the listener on the defensive to strike back verbally. Happening a bunch in this thread between various people a they single and an use You at each other.

Cool it for a bit and moderate ourselves for a change? Thanks!

I think it's great advice for everyone.

There's enough suffering in the world without our help. We don't beed to add to it.
 

DM Magic

Adventurer
This thread is full of garbage opinions. I am ashamed that there are so many men who are still so quick to circle the wagons. Especially now after everything that's been going on.

Hey folks with the garbage opinions -- we see your misogyny. And so do the women in your life.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
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.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
 


Maul

Explorer
Noticing that you find a woman attractive, looking at a woman's breasts, butt, or whatever, giving a woman a compliment are not in-and-of-themselves harassing behaviors. But it's all in HOW you look, stare, ogle, leer, and comment that can very much be harassment. There are too many guys who don't get the difference, or don't care to make the difference, and that is a problem.

Exactly.

There.......that's better. :)
 

Particle_Man

Explorer
well sorry for the format I have a sick child and I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.

“Hearsay” is a legal term regarding the admissibility of statements into evidence in a court case. Zero relationship to journalism.

Journalists have their own standards: ideally, they report direct testimony of individuals and/or information supported by 3+ witnesses. Reporting someone’s accusations that another comitted a criminal act is perfectly legit, even if it cannot be deemed true later down the road. (In which case, the journalist should report that fact.)

I keep thinking that Chris Clinch's 21 years of legal experience have not served him well. He seems not to see this particular unsubtle distinction between a law court and journalism. Maybe he should have been more of a multi-class character, with 11 years of legal experience and 10 years of journalistic experience? ;)

By the way, for the poster that was worried about not recognizing Sean Partick Fannon at a convention, you can simply google the name "Sean Patrick Fannon", and then look at the first row of images. The name is not as common as "John Smith". Sean Patrick Fannon also currently has a wikipedia page with his picture on it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top