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

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
You're right, there is no fence. You either support mob justice with no oversight or restraint, or you support the "status quo" that realizes why this is an incredibly bad idea. Because that's what you're advocating here, you can haw and hum over "consequences", but unless you have some grand plan as to how those will be carried out in a fair and just fashion you're just sidestepping the issue.

You say "mob justice", I say "social consequences for bad behavior". Note that in neither case do the laws or rules of American criminal justice really apply. There was a really great "Would you hire this babysitter?" example from earlier upthread, the point of which being we all make personal judgments about other people and who we do or do not want to associate with ourselves all the time, often based on either the words of others we trust (or at least trust more than the individual in question) or our own initial impressions, which are often based on our own preconceived biases based on an incredibly small sample size of the behaviors and actions that make up that unique individual. Show me a person who insists that they never do this anyone, ever, and I'll show you a person who is lying to themselves.

I'll come back to the "no oversight or restraint" as well, because that's pretty fairly (if implicitly) covered in the parts of my post that you did not quote, which is that the conversation about what consequences Mr. Fannon should face is very nuanced, and because the only consequences that will ever really apply are either those that are self-imposed or made by individual persons, by necessity they cannot be either codified nor institutionalized. Thus, the oversight and restraint that exists exists as it does through groupthink; social consequences are always a democracy.

Given Mr. Fannon's responses (and especially his second post, which is close to a perfect example of the proper way to apologize and demonstrate the desire and will to change bad behavior in this type of situation) I think you'll find that the call for consequences will be much lighter than you would normally see in these cases (though heavier perhaps than if he had offered specific apologies to specific individuals for specific behaviors).

Which brings me back to my first point: we all make judgments of others based on what we know about them (whether we find that information first hand or second hand), and the only question is; where does each of us draw the line?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf.

Citation needed.

Because this would be very surprising news to a lot of people who run conventions.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Citation needed.

Because this would be very surprising news to a lot of people who run conventions.

Right? I don't know where someone would get the idea that they wouldn't be.

Sure, there might be exceptions for things that the Con didn't know about, or things that were beyond the Con's control; which is of course, why it's important to bring these kinds of matters to the Con's attention, but reasonably speaking, it's as true for the Con being responsible for what goes on under their watch as it is a Parent or a Business Owner.
 


jdrakeh

Front Range Warlock
I think we'd all enjoy it if you went back to not posting, since you seem to be unable to have a conversation with dissenting opinions without resorting to personal attacks.

A personal attack actually requires that the attack be addressed, personally. As the name might imply. You know, as you have done here by addressing me personally. That irony is pretty sweet. That said, a very large number of people are completely ignoring facts presented within this thread and accompanying article (e.g., witness testimony, the article author's statement that he saw electronic evidence of harassment, and the fact that Mr. Fannon himself admitted to some of the harassment) in their rush to fall on their sword for Mr. Fannon's benefit. There are a lot of sexual assault heroes in this thread, literally championing a man accused of sexual assault while openly denigrating his accusers as dirty liars. But I'm not addressing that at anybody personally. If you take it personal, that's a YP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Unambiguously the nineteen women to be disbelieved. Our entire justice system (assuming you're American) is built around the presumption of innocence, and yes, the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free than to put innocent people in jail, or in this case have their public reputation destroyed. Mob justice is never sufficient in any scenario.

Oh, well then you should read this study on wrongful incarceration.

Estimated rate of wrongful incarceration: 4.1%. Not very far from 5%, or 1 in 20.

(I've been hearing about similar rates; this was just the first article I found when I Googled.)

So do you therefore believe...unless you want to dismiss the conclusions of this study based on your own highly-scientific gut feel...that we should free all prisoners? Because you say that unambiguously it would be better to leave justice unserved 19 times out of 20 in order to avoid wrongful conviction of that 20th innocent person. So we'd better empty all of our prisons, because about 1 in 20 of those prisoners is innocent. Right?

Or do your standards only apply when the victim is a woman, and the crime is something that you don't really think is a crime?
 
Last edited:

I’m deeply curious: does the actual percentage of potential false accusations matter to anyone’s conclusions?

If it were 1 percent of accusations are false, would the “Innocent until proven guilty” tribe change their minds? How about .01%? How about .0001?

If it were 10% of accusations are false, how many of the “Accusers must be believed” tribe change their minds? How about 50%? How about 99%?

At what level would certainty or uncertainty trump your ideological stance? What threshold of facts or lack of facts cause you (the general "you") to re-examine what you believe is the best course of action?


...
(Fun prediction: Assuming anyone reads this post, both sides of this argument are now going to be offended at me for supporting the other side.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I’m deeply curious: does the actual percentage of potential false accusations matter to anyone’s conclusions?

If it were 1 percent of accusations are false, would the “Innocent until proven guilty” tribe change their minds? How about .01%? How about .0001?

If it were 10% of accusations are false, how many of the “Accusers must be believed” tribe change their minds? How about 50%? How about 99%?

At what level would certainty or uncertainty trump your ideological stance? What threshold of facts or lack of facts cause you (the general "you") to re-examine what you believe is the best course of action?


...
(Fun prediction: Assuming anyone reads this post, both sides of this argument are now going to attack me for supporting the other side.)

The mistake you're making is to assume that this has anything to do with which side gets "believed". An article in a paper (or on a web site) is not a trial and a conviction.

Yes, this guy (sorry I can't seem to remember his name even though he just posted) is innocent until proven guilty. I happen to believe the allegations, based on nothing but gut feel (and a sense of what guys are like and how the world works and no knowledge of any good motivation for the women to lie about this), but that doesn't make him guilty.

However, I don't think he (or any man accused of such a thing) has any right to secrecy until he is proven guilty. The cost of secrecy is that there are never any repercussions, as we have seen. So, yeah, some innocent guys get swept up and it causes them problems ranging from headaches to derailed careers and destroyed marriages, totally unfairly. And the same thing happens when people are accused of other crimes...murder, child abuse, insider trading...you name it. It sucks. It's unfair. And it's an unavoidable cost in a society that believes in the rule of law and a free press, because justice systems run by human beings will be imperfect.

But you (or anyone else) tell me: why should men accused of sexual harassment/assault/rape have a different set of privacy/secrecy expectations than those accused of other crimes?
 

Elfcrusher

I think the ubiquity of social media, and the importance of online reputation especially in the "gig" economy, has enormously amplified the damage an accusation can do to someone. And for better or worse the addition of the term "sexual" to an accusation amplifies it's seriousness a dozen times over. To a large extent, public accusation now IS public conviction. It just doesn't carry a prison sentence.

On the other hand, the fact that harassment (sexual or otherwise) is bad is so obvious as to be practically a tautology. And unpunished systemic harassment also ruins lives.

So my questions - and they are only a discussion starter, I make no pretense to have solutions - is "Do people on both sides of this divide understand there is a COST to their convictions? Is that cost worth the gain they hope to see?"

And as a result of that discussion, what - if any - previously held opinions on justice and gender interaction do we need to re-examine now?
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
(Does anybody know if there's a way to clear all multi-quotes within a thread, or do I have to manually hunt them down and uncheck them?)

Elfcrusher

I think the ubiquity of social media, and the importance of online reputation especially in the "gig" economy, has enormously amplified the damage an accusation can do to someone. And for better or worse the addition of the term "sexual" to an accusation amplifies it's seriousness a dozen times over. To a large extent, public accusation now IS public conviction. It just doesn't carry a prison sentence.

On the other hand, the fact that harassment (sexual or otherwise) is bad is so obvious as to be practically a tautology. And unpunished systemic harassment also ruins lives.

So my questions - and they are only a discussion starter, I make no pretense to have solutions - is "Do people on both sides of this divide understand there is a COST to their convictions? Is that cost worth the gain they hope to see?"

And as a result of that discussion, what - if any - previously held opinions on justice and gender interaction do we need to re-examine now?

I do believe it's a problem that...at the moment...it seems like a mere accusation can end a career, or worse. But not enough of a problem that we should go back to where things were even 10 years ago...that without somebody else's DNA in her panties not only does a woman have no recourse but if she even tries to do something it's likely that she will be the one to suffer (even more than she has).

That said, we need to figure out a better balance going forward. Maybe now that organizations/universities are learning the damage that will be wrought if the stories do go public, women won't have to go public. Maybe organizations will start responding more quickly...and conducting thorough and discrete investigations...rather than brushing off the accusations. Or, worse, firing/shaming the "troublemaker" woman.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top