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
The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.

Yes. Also: there is some relationship between how harassers act across the power differential of gender, and how they act across the power differential of age. Also: anyone taking care of a child is extra vulnerable, because of drains on their stamina and patience, and because "don't do conflict in front of my child" is an inhibiting factor for responding to exploratory pre-harassment precursor behavior with "go away or I'll ask for help! I'll escalate to Con Security if that's what it takes!" Not that women have any more role than men, in who takes how much care of a baby or a child at a con.

Also there is some relationship between how predators treat pre-adolescents, adolescents, and post-adolescents. Here's a creepy story. I recall a con, at which a teenage girl was in a social room. She stepped out, came back in a corset, and suddenly received a LOT more attention from men of various ages. I was sufficiently disturbed that I dropped out of the conversation. After a while, she took off the corset, and the flow of male attention cut off like a faucet. I wanted to become a counter-example, to all the dynamics in play: "you get more attention in a corset", "men try to sit next to you or move in for hugs", etc. So I started a game of catch with her. We got along fine, on that basis; never physically close enough to provoke Attack of Opportunity, as we were chatting while tossing a ball back and forth (and others as they joined in), but we had a good conversation. She was charming and bright. The guys who only made bids for her attention when she was wearing the corset, connected less with her WIS and INT. I called it a success for "Operation Not All Men". Haven't crossed her path again, don't expect to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Hey, you taught me something new-to-me: the "calculus of negligence". Thanks! Well, you brought it to my attention and then I skimmed a bit. I think that's kinda where DannyAlcatraz was going, except that he was discussing resource allocation by the government, rather than by private actors.

Insofar as I understand DannyAlcatraz's intent, he was framing the role of con management, in deterring harassment, as equivalent with the role of the government, in deterring crime; and he was talking only stick methods, with no mention of carrot methods. In terms of prevention cost, one can equate the government spending $1M on putting more cops on the street, with the government spending $1M on sponsoring more "This is your brain on drugs!" advertisements. Yet those are non-identical in secondary and side effects. (Especially: which streets?)

If you think in terms of *net* cost, then whther you are talking about carrots or sticks is irrelevant. It still holds that *any* method of reacing a goal has a cost, and you can weigh the cost of the next step towards the goal with the benefit of that step.

In non-political examples, we can look at credit card fraud prevention. SOme basic steps to prevent fraud are cheap - say it costs you $5 to prevent $1000 in fraud - well, that's a no-brainer, right? BUt, as you add on prevention tactics, you get diminising returns. After a few steps that cost $5 to save $1000, you have some steps that cost $10 to save $1000. Then steps that cost $100 to save $1000. When it gets up to the point where it costs $1005 to stop $1000 in fraud... you stop trying to prevent it, and you just accept the fraud as part of the cost of doing business.

Note that it doesn't matter if the measures are punitive against the offender, or supportive of the customer, or neutral technical improvements on a website. WHen the solution costs (in whatever reources - money, person-hours, emotional spoons, what have you) more than what they save, you don't make the expenditure.
 

Riley37

First Post
If you think in terms of *net* cost, then whther you are talking about carrots or sticks is irrelevant. It still holds that *any* method of reacing a goal has a cost, and you can weigh the cost of the next step towards the goal with the benefit of that step.

True. That's exactly where DannyAlcatraz was going with the example of glagtery suppression.

I stand by my assertion that there are benefits which are not best calculated in dollars, and costs not best calculated in dollars. His example, before it reached "$1005 to prevent $1000", included chipping all citizens to track their movements. Yeah, there's a dollar cost of the chips and the implantation surgery and the massive AI to run pattern checks for three people in a configuration consistent with glagtery. But that process also has a cost to privacy; to public trust; to whether that regime becomes permanent, because the same AI is also useful for tracking political rivals, and for *selective enforcement* of anti-glagtery laws. I am aware of arguments that all of those factors can be reduced to a dollar cost. I guess I'll just agree to disagree, on that aspect.

Burke: "Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it."
Ripley: "They can bill me."

- Aliens, 1986
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
True. That's exactly where DannyAlcatraz was going with the example of glagtery suppression.

I stand by my assertion that there are benefits which are not best calculated in dollars, and costs not best calculated in dollars.

Which is why I mentioned "in whatever resources".

Human privacy, for example, is a resource - you can have more or less of it. It is difficult to give that a straight dollar value, sure. But we humans still do cost-benefit comparisons, and come to a conclusion whether it is dollars or not - do I want X more, or Y more? The important point is that eventually, preventing an undesired behavior has a higher cost than the behavior itself, at whcih point a rational person stops trying to prevent the behavior.
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
In non-political examples, we can look at credit card fraud prevention. SOme basic steps to prevent fraud are cheap - say it costs you $5 to prevent $1000 in fraud - well, that's a no-brainer, right? BUt, as you add on prevention tactics, you get diminising returns. After a few steps that cost $5 to save $1000, you have some steps that cost $10 to save $1000. Then steps that cost $100 to save $1000. When it gets up to the point where it costs $1005 to stop $1000 in fraud... you stop trying to prevent it, and you just accept the fraud as part of the cost of doing business.

Also, the 2nd and 3rd step likely reduce the effectiveness of the 1st step. So if, later on, you reduce spending on the 1st step, you mind find that the ratio is no longer 20:1.
 

Riley37

First Post
Which is why I mentioned "in whatever resources".

Human privacy, for example, is a resource - you can have more or less of it. It is difficult to give that a straight dollar value, sure. But we humans still do cost-benefit comparisons, and come to a conclusion whether it is dollars or not - do I want X more, or Y more? The important point is that eventually, preventing an undesired behavior has a higher cost than the behavior itself, at whcih point a rational person stops trying to prevent the behavior.

I posted, stepped away, then realized while chopping fruit that I had failed to fully address your point as framed, and you beat me to it! Yes, you mentioned currencies other than dollars.

If we can stop or prevent $1000 in shoplifting, and also prevent 100 lost "spoons" of frustration among people who re-stock shelves; at the cost of $995, and 50 more "spoons" of clerks watching the shop aisles like mother bears with cubs; is the net cost of 50 "spoons" worth the net gain of $5? Depends on the spoon-dollar ratio.

So if spending $500 to hire a "Consent Captain" for EN-CON, results in a 37% reduction in harassment complaints, was that a worthwhile trade-off, or was it past the point of diminishing returns? What if deeper study shows a reduction in *complaints*, but an increase in *incidents*? Will the con pay more to reduce gropes of minors, than catcalls of adults, or vice versa?

The question of diminishing returns is still in force. But the involvement of multiple currencies is still an issue. Someone will have to decide, whether upgrading that investment to $1000 is worth the differential in returns on all of those axes in combination. Better you than me!
 

Riley37

First Post
[MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION]

I appreciate you taking the time to write the long, and thoughtful, response. I would like to articulate my perspective.

I agree with some of that, disagree with other parts, will ponder, might decide that a longer response is useful, might post, might PM, might not. For now: thank you for the thoughtful, and mercifully briefer, response.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Another idea is to make sure that little children and their parents are treated with respect at cons. Way back in the day when I went to a con (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) I was part of a game where a baby nearby was crying and the parent took the baby out and the GM lost his temper and cussed out the parent. That seems wrong. I also heard of a report where a parent was with a small child at a big comic/tv/movie con and a TV Star passed by and just tickled the kid’s belly but without permission. I thing that addressing things like this could also be done while addressing sexual harassment. The underlying idea of respect and boundaries seems to be the same in both cases.

If this is too far off topic I apologize.

Probably not too far - it's a topic that's either in the same ballpark or the one next door - treating people decently in a public setting, treating them with respect, treating them as you'd like to be treated, respecting their boundaries, and so on - rather than using them as an vehicle for you own selfish needs whether sexual, power-tripping, or even just venting frustration.
 

Jeanneliza

First Post
And going into what? Ten days now of ongoing discussion, to reach the point of finding those points we do agree on, learning to recognize what the others may say that because our life experience is simply different we may have failed to recognize what they actually mean. I am impressed, I rarely see one of these discussion go more than a day or two, 3 if you are lucky, and the subject is dropped until the next well known person is outed, in a month or a year or whenever, and very little changes in between.
Before this comes to an end I want to add, making Cons, indeed society, safer for the weakest is NOT a zero sum game. Taking steps to make sure women and other marginalized populations are safer and can get about their daily lives with less fear does not equal making it less safe for anyone else. In fact the opposite it true. Once you begin to notice the thousand and one little indignities some around you endure every day, it is a short step to noticing when those same indignities are being inflicted on one you perceive as like you.
All though I only game online, and have only endured a fraction of what some have dealt with, only once did I make a formal complaint to a forum moderator about something I had witnessed and took screen shots of before it could be taken down. What I saw that alarmed me was something that because of training in suicide prevention sent up my other red flags. It was the bullying of a white male of about 25, and his posted response sent up the flags of potential suicide warnings. I contacted him privately and asked if he was okay, that I had seen what had happened, saved the evidence, and told him not to let that particular actor get to him others had had problems before and so on. I was quite relieved to find out he wasn't suicidal, because smashing his computer had relieved his pain. Not a great choice either, but see, it wasn't because of his gender I reached out, it was because my life experience and awareness saw a human being hurting, the same awareness that was trained because of harassment etc women deal with daily. This is what I mean about once you guys start noticing the suffering of women, or transgender or gender fluid or disabled or any other marginalized group, you become more aware of it amongst yourselves as well. And more likely to act.
I have grandsons that belong to these marginalized groups, I know they have experienced bullying, and I know they are also more sensitive to when others are bullied as a result. Harassment, sexual assault, because they are more about power than anything else are specific types of bullying.
Once you address it to help the weakest, again, you open your eyes to how prevalent it is among your gender AGAINST your own gender.
My grandson has been the victim of false allegations, but it was a guy behind it. You guys may not see it, but you can be even worse to your own gender than you are to others. Teasing guys about being sissies, or being virgins, or not being cool enough and so on is your gender hurting your own, and if you over look how women are treated, do you ever really notice when guys are treated badly either?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top