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
No. It is pointing out that someones reputation is bring attacked with no evidence. Did it happen did it not happen? No one here knows. But the author of the "article" has decided that the allegation is both proof of specific and proof of industry wide problems and proof that not enough is bring done to address them.

1) an allegation of wrongdoing has occurred.

2) reporting allegations of wrongdoing is one aspect of the proper job of journalism, not character assassination.*

3) the accused has been a part of this thread and admitted at least some of his wrongdoing.**

So, zero points to you for adopting a “no evidence” position.





* if you don’t believe me, you really should start being more vocal about things like Smallville actress Allison Mack & NXIVM leader Keith Raniere being accused of human trafficking. After all, nothing has been proven, just alleged.

** in fairness, some of which posts he- unfortunately- edited out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

1) an allegation of wrongdoing has occurred.

2) reporting allegations is one aspect of the job of journalism, not character assassination.

3) the accused has been a part of this thread and admitted at least some of his wrongdoing.

So, zero points to you for adopting a “no evidence” position.
No. A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not.

This is the internet. Can you prove it was really him? Maybe you can. Maybe he posted, admitted to his actions, and we know for certain that it was really him.

That would make him the exception among all the topics of this kind posted here.

Question. You say he admitted to some of the things hings he was accused of in the article. So are you assuming automatically that he is lying when he denies the others or are you assuming that author if this topic committed libel? It has to be one or the other.
 

Charrua13

First Post
I can't find it on this page, but it's still in my list of replies to me, so:



If you build your argument out of straw, you hurt everyone on your side when the wolves come in and blow it away. Of course there needs to be a standard of evidence to believe anything. Believing any allegations of sexual assault is a standard. One of the problems with it is that it's a standard that, having zero flexibility, tends to dissolve under any sort of pressure; people who believe in absolutes often seem to swing around the extremes, instead of approaching the complex truth. Also, good job giving fuel to any one who is terrified that one accusation, no matter how absurd, can destroy everything, by attacking anyone who wants any sort of thought about the matter. I think the number going around here is 5% of accusations are false, which means an accusation is pretty strong evidence, but once in a nat 20 there will be alarm bells going off and perhaps some rational thought is needed. And it's pretty hard to talk about when those alarm bells are simple bias or even refusal to accept the obvious and when they're indicative of a real problem in the accusation if someone is going off on everyone who isn't a 100% extremist.

...or how about we just treat misogyny and toxic masculinity like the cancers they are to society.

If we constantly evaluate our behaviors, as men, accordingly the metaconversation is less about "are these allegations?" and "how are my actions perpetuating a society that is completely inhospitable to women?"

It's not about "did man A do nasty things to women A B C D." Your parochial perspective on this matter, and that of most men on this forum, does nothing to promote the conversation of how toxic masculinity encourages men to be awful to women and ignore their agency, particularly within the gaming community.

So while the class appreciates your insistence on standing up and offering your opinions on the matter, quit derailing the conversation. Now sit down.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
No. A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not.

This is the internet. Can you prove it was really him? Maybe you can. Maybe he posted, admitted to his actions, and we know for certain that it was really him.

Are you saying you're more willing to assume that he's the victim of identity spoofing here on ENWorld than that his accusers may be telling the truth?
 

Hussar

Legend
/edit

Whoops, sorry, didn't realize how far the thread had moved on.

Nothing to see here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Particle_Man

Explorer
No it really doesn’t. If you are relying on Chris Clinch for that argument you both are sadly mistaken.

Edit: This was in reply to JacktheRabbit and his claims about libel. This is a fast thread!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wait, now people are claiming it's not even SPF who posted in this thread?

The man has a Facebook account, among other internet footprints, and he's posted some of the exact same things there, as well as actually discussing his participation in this thread.

And he writes (or did write) for this site, which means he already has an established forum handle and [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] knows his IP address.

Jesus fried chicken...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
A person claiming to be the accused posted admitting to some. Was it him? Maybe it was maybe it was not.

Fair point. I cannot personally ID whether it was SPF or someone else.

However, on this board and others, those who can, have.
 

Riley37

First Post
I am more tired of the court of public opinion character assassination posts here at EN World.

You accuse EN World of allowing character assassination posts. But has a court of law ever convicted EN World of character assassination? Until a court delivers a verdict, you must presume innocence. That's how it works!

In the meantime, I recommend you read and ponder J.S. Mills "On Liberty", which discusses the relationship between society acting through government, with such power that codified checks and balances are necessary, and society acting through other means and on other scales.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Question. You say he admitted to some of the things hings he was accused of in the article. So are you assuming automatically that he is lying when he denies the others or are you assuming that author if this topic committed libel? It has to be one or the other.

Incorrect.

Reporting those he admits to cannot, by definition, be libel.

Those he does not admit to/actively denies may or may not be libel, depending on the actual underlying truth. However, the truth may not be ascertainable to those doing the reporting.

But then it is a matter of proof in which the burden is on the person claiming they were libeled. Here are the basic elements of proving a libel case (courtesy of FindLaw):

First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.

Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.

Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.

Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.

The third is kind of key. A good-faith, non-negligent reporting of allegations goes a long way to immunizing a journalist and/or outlet from a libel case. And under the best practices of the field, they will correct or retract previously published stories they later believe may believe were false. If they do that, there won’t be much evidence of “negligence”.

Further, if the person claiming defamation was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.

(This is a much higher standard than “negligence”.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top