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


log in or register to remove this ad

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Back in the day elitistjerks.com had the best forum rules/moderation ever. I say that even though I ran afoul of it a few times.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Every day, I am that much more thankful for this website and for the moderation of Morrus and the administrators. :)

While it must be dispiriting at times (such as this thread), it really allows for a much better signal/noise ratio on a daily basis.

Yeah, I honestly come here to clear my head. There's something relaxing about the fact that problematic posts are dealt with swiftly, to the point where they almost never appear to begin with.
 

Jeanneliza

First Post
Well I have to say at least this thread has proven Mr. Helton's premise in the headline, there clearly is still a LOT of work to be done, not just in the gaming community but in our society as a whole.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Thank you, forums poster Thomas Bowman, for coming forward with the "but what if women are sadistic, lying witches?" defense.

I am sure that your fanciful what-if scenarios are extremely pertinent to the issue at hand and things that actually happen all the time.

As opposed to harassment, which is basically nonexistent and in fact only happens when there's video evidence, sworn witnesse affidavits, and certification from a licensed telepath who can testify as to the alleged harasser's actual intent.

Great post. The "oh no! terrible things might possibly happen if we allow justice to be served" argument is the last resort of the weak.
 
Last edited:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.

Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"

This level of bitterness and misogyny is pretty dark. I don’t know why you have such a low opinion of women, but it has no place here. Please do not post again in this thread. This post, and your others in this thread, are appalling; I'll be considering your future here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dualazi

First Post
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.

Yeah, thankfully the message is "witch hunts shouldn't destroy people's careers" it seems, which is a pretty good one on the whole. Convention organizers are under no impetus, nor should they be, to conduct background checks that transcend beyond the legal sphere into the realm of rumors and maybes. Likewise, a convention is not responsible for the actions of those attending it, invitees or otherwise, unless they miss-step while conducting business on the convention's behalf. If a speaker they invite goes and drives under the influence after his/her time-slot, it's not on the convention to screen further speakers for a history of drunkenness.

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

Two things on this note:

1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.

2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering.

Discussion point:

Assuming the rate of vindictive "false reporting" for harassment runs at about 5% (which is a little lower than the average rate of criminal false accusation, but is a nice round number).

Is it better for 19 honest women who feel harassed to be harmed by having their stories disbelieved, or for 1 honest man to be destroyed by false accusations?

Apocryphal Benjamin Franklin and Rene Descarte quotes aside, that should be easy math for us nerds. "The needs of the many..."

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

I love the chorus of ""Harassment hasn't occurred until proven before a court of law and these women are all dirty, dirty, liars until a judge says otherwise!" battle cry of sexual harassment champions here. This is why I don't post on ENWorld very much. If you think being a SJW is awful, being a die hard champion for sexual harassment and he-man woman-hater is magnitudes worse.

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

There is no fence.

There are two potential outcomes to accusations such as these. (1) Something happens as a result; i.e. Fannon faces consequences for his actions (based, ideally, on a number of different circumstances, but especially on the sincerity of his contrition and demonstration of better behavior); or (2) Nothing happens; the status quo remains; i.e, Fannon faces no consequences.

You do not get to not choose a side. You are either for the status quo, which tacitly means you believe the women making accusations are lying (or, at the very least, you believe that we should base our reaction as if we believed they were lying, which is a difference without a distinction if you ask me); or you believe they are telling the truth, at least in part if not in full, which means that there should be some consequences for Fannon's behavior.

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

With all the dealing with trolls, a pretty key post slipped by unnoticed. So just wanted to signal boost it.
(A pretty good example of why, after a good faith rely or two, you should ignore and block and not repeatedly engage.)

The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.

The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.

That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...

None of that matters.

We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.

The details of this article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.

What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.

I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.

That is all that truly needs to be said about this.
 

the_redbeard

Explorer
Two things on this note:

1) Have these actually done anything? As in, is there any data to support the assertion that all of these policies actually deter predatory behavior, or is it a bunch of legalese to make people feel like change is happening when it isn't? I suspect the latter, especially when the very subject of this article asserts many of the incidents were supposedly errors of miscommunication, which the subject would not have registered as harassment in the first place. I likewise believe that these incidents would have taken place regardless of any language put forth to attendants prior.

2) Visibility doesn't mean jack, and this is why your article (and those like it) are a crock. High visibility of misdeeds/crimes does NOT imply that there is an epidemic of them occurring, any more than a high profile murder would lead you to believe that America is getting more dangerous, when the opposite has been true for some time. You can say that "something needs to be done" when you can conclusively show that gaming conventions have a consistently higher rate of harassment than other social events of similar scale. Until such time as that data is provided then there is no indication that this hobby at large is any more or less healthy/safe than any other large gathering.

Besides outing people with opinions like yours to the rest of the community, the publishing of these revelations has lead to public introspection, acknowledgement of harm done, a public apology, and an expression to change.

Since you missed that, I'll quote it here:

SPF said:
The first instinct of the privileged when they sense they are under attack is a vigorous and spirited defense.

The first instinct of the marginalized is something quite different – acceptance, retreat, avoidance, all the while hoping others don't jump in to elevate the attack any further.

That's something I should have parsed from the very beginning of all of this. I followed my first instinct, from my position of privilege, and engaged in a vigorous and spirited defense. I sought to assert facts and point out nuances; I sought to establish problems with how the article was put together, what was missing, who might have cause to do me harm...

None of that matters.

We are in a very difficult, but very important time in our growth as a society. We are trying to tear down barriers that lie in the way of those who have suffered. We are trying to open doors, shatter ceilings, and give protection to the millions who have suffered in silence, or who were silenced.

The details of the EN World article, frankly, don't matter anywhere near as much as I wanted to believe. What matters is that I have in some way caused damage. I have acted in manners that have caused others harm and discomfort.

What matters more is that an effort is undertaken to hear those who are in pain, giving them cover and comfort to come forth, while those like me take every such situation and reevaluate every way in which we've created discomfort and a lack of inclusivity.

I am sorry to anyone who has ever been caused harm by my actions, intentional or not. You should be a part of community without ever having to feel afraid or disgusted or objectified, and I will continue to do all I can to work towards that.

That is all that truly needs to be said about this.

We can only hope that Sean makes good on his intentions which is the real test of the effectiveness of publicizing the allegations. What we know is not effective is continuing to ignore the voices of the harassed.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Second, I'm not certain to which country this thread writer originates from, however ...in the United States there is a crime called Libel (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation). Since NONE of these allegations have been proven in a court of law, then this entire thread is Libel (if EN has a legal team... you may be advised to remove the thread) and again leaves me wondering about the validity of this thread.

Feel free to ban me, because I have approached the thread with facts and law.

No.

1) You have approached this thread with ignoring stated facts- the behavior was corroborated by multiple witnesses AND Mr. Fannon has admitted to at least some of the behavior described, here in this thread and elsewhere. This has been pointed out multiple times by other posters, but somehow, that keeps evading the notice of several people in this thread.

2) Because of this proof and admissions- even without the rigor of the rules of evidence in a court- describing the article as “libel” is a complete misstatement of law. The behavior alleged has been verified AND admitted to and is therefore not libel as a matter of law. An attorney trying to make this into a libel case would see it dismissed so quickly after the defendant’s statement “He admitted to the behavior ______, ______, and ____ times, your Honor”, heads would spin. The only question would be whether the plaintiff’s attorney would get a contempt citation and/or a sanction from the bar association.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top