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

Riley37

First Post
I’m already taking behavioral self-improvement as a necessary given

Well, yeah, YOU take that as necessary. I included you on the Betacon list. As you may have noticed, self-improvement is not a consensus position among participants in this thread.

And a wise venue/event operator would also take steps to increase prevention , which would lower their rates somewhat, but would increase personnel and infrastructure costs (more security, more monitors, more predictive algorithms, etc.), which would also somewhat boost ticket prices.

I like economic incentives. That said, what if the owner of a large building in NYC, offered its use, free, to GenCon, conditional on GenCon looking the other way? Profitable, but at a moral price. Consider the Miss Teen USA pageant. The man who bought it in 2005 said: "I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that." This is the outcome, for 15-year-old girls, when "money talks" is the swing factor.

So the question comes back to what I asked a few pages ago: how much more are you willing to pay?

Registration fee has never been my decision point on whether to attend a con or not. When I'm flush, I'll pay any fee within the existing range; when I'm broke, I attend as a volunteer. If anti-harassment measures doubled the registration fee, that would not reduce my chance of attending.

Here's what else I would pay, to attend BetaCon: certain freedoms of personal expression. WHAT? Hear me out. (Or not; if you're here to denounce me as an SJW enemy of Freeze Peach, then you've got your pull-quote, take it and go wild.)

If I stare at cosplayers, point-blank, for extended durations, then at some point Con Security will say "Okay, buddy, that's too close, move along." If staff are quicker to intervene at Betacon, than at GenCon and PaizoCon, then by attending Betacon I lose some freedom to ogle. That's fine with me, since I wasn't exercising that privilege all the way to the limit anyways.

In a con game, the PCs defeat a bandit gang, and I suggest that the PCs let any surviving bandits go free but only for a price, heh heh, know what I mean... then what happens? If at Alphacon, that gets me a high-five; and Gencon or Paizocon, that might get me a blank stare, but doesn't get me immediately tossed from the game; while Betacon tosses me immediately, from the game AND the con, no second chance; then Betacon has less freedom of personal expression, but I'm happy to waive that particular expression, because I wasn't using it anyways.

If Alphacon has a special presentation with Fannon, and Betacon does not, then I'm willing to give up Fannon. Same with the opportunity to get a FATAL ("From Another Time Another Land") game on the con program. Same with Cards against Humanity. (I have never seen humanity win that game; it's rigged in favor of the cards.) If I wanna game with any of the people Morrus has banned in this thread, then that's a feature of AlphaCon, but that option won't be available at BetaCon, because they'll get tossed from Betacon much faster than they got tossed from EN World.

I'll go one further: see Charrua13's post, a page or two back, challenging men to step up. If you're a man and you're not ready to step up, then Betacon is not for you. Don't bother registering.

These measures, as a suite, affect the cost of security and troubleshooting personnel at Betacon. When the only men at the con, are men ready to step up, then participants tend to nip problems in the bud, long before con staff have to get involved. So in a way, it's kinda like attending as a volunteer: I'm willing to reduce the con's staff expenses, by doing my share of actively keeping the con inclusive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Afrodyte

Explorer
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to go through this entire thread and point out every post that pinged my threat assessment radar.

Oh wait. I tried that. And got a tidal wave of, "You're being mean/unfair!" as a result.

So, like I said, I'll stay home.
 

Riley37

First Post
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to go through this entire thread and point out every post that pinged my threat assessment radar.

Oh wait. I tried that. And got a tidal wave of, "You're being mean/unfair!" as a result.

So, like I said, I'll stay home.

On one hand, there's all the posts which pinged your threat assessment radar, before you started pointing them out.

On another hand, you pointed them out, and they squealed in outrage, and at this point, there may be EN Worlders (and/or former EN Worlders blaming you for their bans) who would have an eye out for you, at Gencon or Paizocon, just *itching* to put you in your place. I imagine you are aware of how Gamergate treated Felicia Day and Brianna Wu, how Carl "Sargon" Benjamin treated Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

At this point, I could not in good faith recommend you attend any TRPG con, unless it provided a security detail for you, or equivalent countermeasures, at the con's expense.

I hate to admit that, but I enjoy your posts and I want you safe.

Elfcrusher, if you think I'm over-reacting, then can we agree on the larger picture and disagree on this one?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Afrodyte

Explorer
On one hand, there's all the posts which pinged your threat assessment radar, before you started pointing them out.

On another hand, you pointed them out, and they squealed in outrage, and at this point, there may be EN Worlders (and/or former EN Worlders blaming you for their bans) who would have an eye out for you, at Gencon or Paizocon, just *itching* to put you in your place. I imagine you are aware of how Gamergate treated Felicia Day and Brianna Wu, how Carl "Sargon" Benjamin treated Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

At this point, I could not in good faith recommend you attend any TRPG con, unless it provided a security detail for you, or equivalent countermeasures, at the con's expense.

I hate to admit that, but I enjoy your posts and I want you safe.

True. I probably shouldn't go without at least a male chaperone and make sure to stay within sight of him at all times. Which is a shame, as there is a very simple thing that can be done to make all that unnecessary (at least, for me).

As for creepers waiting to put me in my place, well, here's the thing. I think a major part of the problem is that most guys' threat detection equipment is only calibrated for the obvious creeps like the R Kellys, Donald Trumps and Harvey Weinsteins of the world but not for the Bill Cosbys, Louis CKs, Aziz Ansaris and Junot Diazes (to name a few high-profile instances), not to mention all those male feminists and male allies and progressive guys like Hugo Schwyzer who know the jargon and know the rhetoric, yet exploit, abuse, harass and assault women.

But, no, apparently the problem is not men who behave this way or men who contribute to an environment where men who do this feel confident they can behave this way without suffering any repercussions other than a bruised ego. The real problem is that I took the wrong tone with some of you who made comments that made me go, "Hmmm" and asked for information that would allow me to at least avoid contact with people who have said something that made me feel uncomfortable or to have something to give to the authorities if they did something to me or someone else while at a con. Yes, there was a humorous component to it, but it wasn't frivolous.

I've gotten more pushback for those cheeky one-sentence posts than people who've posted flat-out victim-blamey comments. Meanwhile, the thoughtful and measured things I've said didn't get much of a response despite taking a lot longer to compose, and I can count on one hand the number of times someone actually asked what would make women feel safe in a convention environment. I don't fault anyone for not thinking to ask, but it is chilling that so many people say they mean well aren't stopping to wonder why that is.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I must say I agreed with Bari Weiss’ assessment of the Aziz Ansari bad date//harassment case. That woman’s own texts to AA the next day indicate that- while some of her communication that night was verbal- a lot of it was nonverbal. Mind readers, humans are not, and nonverbal communication is often going to be insufficient to make your point understood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html
 

Afrodyte

Explorer
Sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I must say I agreed with Bari Weiss’ assessment of the Aziz Ansari bad date//harassment case. That woman’s own texts to AA the next day indicate that- while some of her communication that night was verbal- a lot of it was nonverbal. Mind readers, humans are not, and nonverbal communication is often going to be insufficient to make your point understood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html

I think you want to rethink the context of my post and the nature of this comment.
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I think you want to rethink the context of my post and the nature of this comment.
The (female) writer of the article quoted her texts:
“Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” she responded. “You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.” He replied with an apology.

She later said:
Aziz Ansari sounds as if he were aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say, “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say, “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying goodbye.

The single most distressing thing to me about this story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. The woman is merely acted upon.

All of this put me in mind of another article published this weekend, this one by the novelist and feminist icon Margaret Atwood. “My fundamental position is that women are human beings,” she writes. “Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we’re back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.”

So, no. I agree with Ms. Weiss’ assessment. While she agrees that AA was aggressive, her conclusion is that what happened that night was a bad date, but not harassment. He’s not a Cosby or Louis wannabe, at least not in this context.

Now, if others come forward, I will reassess. Especially if what is described starts to form a consistent pattern. But at this point, I don’t consider him as “one of the bad ones.”
 

Afrodyte

Explorer
The (female) writer of the article quoted her texts:


She later said:


So, no. I agree with Ms. Weiss’ assessment. While she agrees that AA was aggressive, her conclusion is that what happened that night was a bad date, but not harassment. He’s not a Cosby or Louis wannabe, at least not in this context.

Now, if others come forward, I will reassess. But at this point, I don’t consider him as “one of the bad ones.”

Why are you so invested in debunking a single example and ignoring the larger point?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top