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

Sadras

Legend
Look, if you want to take offense at women choosing to be careful, and not trusting men until the men give them a reason to trust, that's on you. Nobody can stop you. But in so doing, you are neither giving them any reason to believe differently, nor contributing to the effort to solve the problem.

I have a wife that likes to run in the mornings and she runs with a group of friends but sometimes does it alone, not often thankfully. I do not like it and despite my best attempts to dissuade her from doing this (for safety reasons) this is what she likes, it is her hobby, her D&D. So yes I can understand the 'not trusting men' I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers.
I really need to go to one of these conventions in the States to see that is it as bad as all this forum is making it out to be. I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
@Mouseferatu, what about calling a person which I don't know well and trust and practising a particular faith a potential terrorist? Would you consider that a personal attack?

OTOH, if you know that that person is doing a number of things that potentially might set off some alarm bells, SHOULDN'T you say something? If that person is surfing sites to research how to make a pressure cooker bomb, makes comments that, while are in no way illegal, but, are somewhat alarming, and whatnot, isn't it your responsibility to step up here?

I mean, if we're drawing equivalencies here. Unless, of course, you see belonging to a particular faith as a warning sign in and of itself, then, well, perhaps some self reflection might be in order.
 

I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers.

It's not a label. It's a scary truth women have to live with. "Lots of men are harassers, and many aspects of our society teach them that it's okay. I do not know this man. Therefore, he is potentially a harasser."

(Note that word. "Potentially." They haven't labeled you anything, they merely don't know.)

"Labeling" implies that it's about you or me. It's not. It's not about us at all. It's about them not being safe. Instead of getting mad that they acknowledge they aren't safe--which is all considering strange men "potential harassers" is doing--let's focus on changing things so they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Afrodyte

Explorer
No, but I could give you a picture of my dog, Delphine AKA Dellie.

She definitely feels oppressed by the "patriarchy" when she does not get human food. She feels this is species-ist and definitely does not understand cis-species people as she identifies as human. How dare they classify her!

However, she still may end up on your list since she is a both a predator and a stalker. She kills more mice than most cats with dragon like efficiency. It could be said she is culturally appropriating from the cats. But the cats don't seem to mind.

She does, however, hang around the marginalized and oppressed as her best friend is a pit bull, who also thinks he is a human.

I am afraid, though, they make bad gaming partners. The pit bull one time ate the gaming notes in a game I DM and a lack of a thumb means no D20 rolling anytime soon.

Is that a no?
 

Advilaar

Explorer
I have a wife that likes to run in the mornings and she runs with a group of friends but sometimes does it alone, not often thankfully. I do not like it and despite my best attempts to dissuade her from doing this (for safety reasons) this is what she likes, it is her hobby, her D&D. So yes I can understand the 'not trusting men' I just do not believe it is productive to the conversation to blanket label men as potential harassers.
I really need to go to one of these conventions in the States to see that is it as bad as all this forum is making it out to be. I mean it sounds like women are walking into the lion's den over there.

It's not.

If she avoids the drunk room parties too late and sticks to gaming, she would be okay except in rare circumstances. Like showing up to some company room party with what the article is about. But, see #1.

Most of the FUD is from four sources:

- real tales of jerk horny drunk dudes that pop up where singles congregate that do not understand the word no. These guys get tossed out, curb stomped, publicly embarrassed, or end up like Mr. Fannon. They are also relatively rare. We are not talking legitimate trying to hook up attempts that are rebuffed and graciously accepted (SEE #2). These creatures are attracted to where any large amount of singles congregate. You can avoid them somewhat by not staying at the room parties to the end if you go OR not going at all. It is nerd science (and shady meat market bar science) that the ratio of creeps to normals increases as the night moves into morning.

- misanthropes that think ANY attention from anyone is bad and exaggerate stuff. Typically have a long list of things that offend them, some of which may seem bizarre to the average D20 roller. Fortunately, this creature rarely goes out. But when they do, they are sure FB, Twitter, Tumblr, and the forum boards hear how oppressive it was to get click bait.

- a small minority of upper middle class younger, sheltered cosplayers in several hundred dollar get ups half naked on the floor who get in a tizzy if someone mentions something - even a compliment - on their half nakedness.

- activists that want to move into an existing organization rather than forming their own with the goal of social engineering bringing their people in while marginalizing perceived opposing factions. Often through exaggerated media, unsourced attack pieces, and clickbait headlines. However, i would not worry too much about these people as they tend to turn on each other with infighting and as public attention shifts, they lose power since no one cares.

If you do not want this, as I said earlier. Eliminate cosplay, the drunken room parties, and make the con about play your game and leave.

However, not sure the people with money want that. People do come to these things to meet people, and some - even the ladies - to hook up. Many more don't care/ already have a partner/ whatever. Till then, just use common sense.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
No, but I could give you a picture of my dog, Delphine AKA Dellie.

She definitely feels oppressed by the "patriarchy" when she does not get human food. She feels this is species-ist and definitely does not understand cis-species people as she identifies as human. How dare they classify her!

However, she still may end up on your list since she is a both a predator and a stalker. She kills more mice than most cats with dragon like efficiency. It could be said she is culturally appropriating from the cats. But the cats don't seem to mind.

She does, however, hang around the marginalized and oppressed as her best friend is a pit bull, who also thinks he is a human.

I am afraid, though, they make bad gaming partners. The pit bull one time ate the gaming notes in a game I DM and a lack of a thumb means no D20 rolling anytime soon.

I sense this was meant to be witty, but it's just...odd. I gather from the language ("partriarchy", "cis", "identifies as", "marginalized and oppressed", "culturally appropriating", etc.) that the attempt here is to paint this discussion as just another facet of lefty nonsense.

I'll admit I'm right there with you on some of those terms. Some of those examples could be considered cases of progressives going too far (or perhaps too soon?). But given the sheer, staggering numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted, mostly by people they know, it seems obvious to me that this behavior is enabled by the jokes, ogling, entitlement, and objectification that essentially all men engage in. I know. We all know. We are there and we witness it. If you don't witness it you're either a) blind/oblivious, b) lying, or c) a friendless loser. Basically all guys objectivity girls/women. Some of them go on to harass. And some of those go on to assault.

And that's why we need to be alert to and intolerant of the low-level harassing behaviors. Yes, it's hard not to let your eyes be drawn to cleavage. Recognize that when you do that some part of your brain is not thinking of the woman as a peer and an equal, and try to be a better man.

But going back to the above post, the dog analogy might be more useful for addressing another sub-topic in this thread: "potential" harassment.

All dogs are "potential biters". Most are not, but if you are worried about getting bitten by dogs, then you should treat all dogs as potential biters.

Some behaviors...growling, hackles, skittishness...are indicators that a dog is more likely to be a biter. It's not a 1:1 correlation, but again if you are playing it safe, those are good things to look out for. Poorly trained/socialized dogs are the most likely to bite, but you can't tell a dog's history by looking at it, so you look for these signs.

If a dog bites you, and you weren't committing a crime against its owner, it is the owner's fault. Always. It doesn't matter if you were "asking for it" by trying to play with a strange dog, or walking too close, or acting like a gazelle, or rubbing fish oil on your privates. Some people might ask, "Why the $%#^ did you do that?" and secretly blame the victim, but legally it is still the dog's...and therefore the owner's...fault.
 

Advilaar

Explorer
I sense this was meant to be witty, but it's just...odd. I gather from the language ("partriarchy", "cis", "identifies as", "marginalized and oppressed", "culturally appropriating", etc.) that the attempt here is to paint this discussion as just another facet of lefty nonsense.

I'll admit I'm right there with you on some of those terms. Some of those examples could be considered cases of progressives going too far (or perhaps too soon?). But given the sheer, staggering numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted, mostly by people they know, it seems obvious to me that this behavior is enabled by the jokes, ogling, entitlement, and objectification that essentially all men engage in. I know. We all know. We are there and we witness it. If you don't witness it you're either a) blind/oblivious, b) lying, or c) a friendless loser. Basically all guys objectivity girls/women. Some of them go on to harass. And some of those go on to assault.

And that's why we need to be alert to and intolerant of the low-level harassing behaviors. Yes, it's hard not to let your eyes be drawn to cleavage. Recognize that when you do that some part of your brain is not thinking of the woman as a peer and an equal, and try to be a better man.

But going back to the above post, the dog analogy might be more useful for addressing another sub-topic in this thread: "potential" harassment.

All dogs are "potential biters". Most are not, but if you are worried about getting bitten by dogs, then you should treat all dogs as potential biters.

Some behaviors...growling, hackles, skittishness...are indicators that a dog is more likely to be a biter. It's not a 1:1 correlation, but again if you are playing it safe, those are good things to look out for. Poorly trained/socialized dogs are the most likely to bite, but you can't tell a dog's history by looking at it, so you look for these signs.

If a dog bites you, and you weren't committing a crime against its owner, it is the owner's fault. Always. It doesn't matter if you were "asking for it" by trying to play with a strange dog, or walking too close, or acting like a gazelle, or rubbing fish oil on your privates. Some people might ask, "Why the $%#^ did you do that?" and secretly blame the victim, but legally it is still the dog's...and therefore the owner's...fault.

EXACTLY....
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
The part that gets to me (that ALWAYS gets to me) is that the acts being described in these cases I can NEVER see myself doing, or never doing even with explicit permission of the parties concerned, even if I weren’t married. Showing pictures of myself or others engaged in sex acts? Engaging in hotel room hook-ups? Drunken groping or touching?

Yes, I’m older, married, and pretty conservative in my social activities; but even if I were single and looking for someone, I couldn’t see any of the behaviors described as OK. I’d have to know someone EXTREMELY well, the chemistry would have to be obvious, and God forbid I wouldn’t try to hook up with them at some lame-ass convention hotel room. It’s just when I hear these stories, and the most frequent defense is, “they misinterpreted my actions,” I’m trying really hard to understand when someone got the idea that the action in question was OK in the context of a public venue in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
It's not.

If she avoids the drunk room parties too late and sticks to gaming, she would be okay except in rare circumstances. Like showing up to some company room party with what the article is about. But, see #1.

Most of the FUD is from four sources:

- real tales of jerk horny drunk dudes that pop up where singles congregate that do not understand the word no. These guys get tossed out, curb stomped, publicly embarrassed, or end up like Mr. Fannon. They are also relatively rare. We are not talking legitimate trying to hook up attempts that are rebuffed and graciously accepted (SEE #2). These creatures are attracted to where any large amount of singles congregate. You can avoid them somewhat by not staying at the room parties to the end if you go OR not going at all. It is nerd science (and shady meat market bar science) that the ratio of creeps to normals increases as the night moves into morning.

- misanthropes that think ANY attention from anyone is bad and exaggerate stuff. Typically have a long list of things that offend them, some of which may seem bizarre to the average D20 roller. Fortunately, this creature rarely goes out. But when they do, they are sure FB, Twitter, Tumblr, and the forum boards hear how oppressive it was to get click bait.

- a small minority of upper middle class younger, sheltered cosplayers in several hundred dollar get ups half naked on the floor who get in a tizzy if someone mentions something - even a compliment - on their half nakedness.

- activists that want to move into an existing organization rather than forming their own with the goal of social engineering bringing their people in while marginalizing perceived opposing factions. Often through exaggerated media, unsourced attack pieces, and clickbait headlines. However, i would not worry too much about these people as they tend to turn on each other with infighting and as public attention shifts, they lose power since no one cares.

If you do not want this, as I said earlier. Eliminate cosplay, the drunken room parties, and make the con about play your game and leave.

However, not sure the people with money want that. People do come to these things to meet people, and some - even the ladies - to hook up. Many more don't care/ already have a partner/ whatever. Till then, just use common sense.

Is the use of the word "lady", intended as a compliment, literally a 100.0% accurate indicator of misogyny? Sometimes I think it might be.
 

Sadras

Legend
OTOH, if you know that that person is doing a number of things that potentially might set off some alarm bells, SHOULDN'T you say something? If that person is surfing sites to research how to make a pressure cooker bomb, makes comments that, while are in no way illegal, but, are somewhat alarming, and whatnot, isn't it your responsibility to step up here?

Sure, but there is a massive difference between making a rape comment over a DotA/HoN game and researching how to make a pressure cooker bomb. I guess I got my back up because @S'mon made a comment about repetitive behaviour and misinterpreted talked to with distracted by cleavage and somehow got 'outed' as an offender and everyone seemed ok with it. :erm:

I mean you have your obvious trolls and sock-puppets and then you have those engaged in earnest discussion who might have points of disagreement with you*. The point is, do not treat everyone who disagrees with your as some troll/sock-puppet.

*You - the general you not you (Hussar) personally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top