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

Thank you for explaining.

I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof.

Such as, as you say, multiple eye-witnesses and video.

It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe any accusation from any accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me. Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's an interesting corner case. If someone accused you of harrassment, under Option 1) would you have to assume you are yourself guilty?

I would say yes; because harassment is not defined by any particular action but by whether the person aggrieved feels they were harassed.

So to answer "By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me." my answer would be: yes, I believe you, and I apologize unreservedly for my behaviour.

Of course I'm Canadian, so that would probably be my response in most situations anyway.
 

This is all word against word, there is no reason why anyone harassed in the last 20 years has had any reason to feel that they could not go to the police. If you were harassed them go to the authorities. If it was not important enough to you to take the proper steps to protect yourself and to protect others from possible future acts of said person then should it really be discussed here? Because at this point, well after the fact no one here has a single fact and all that happens is character assassination against the alleged perpetrator and of the alleged victim, and neither action does anyone any good.

As a second point do we need "policies" in place that basically say you cannot break the law at our convention? Looking at the Gen Con policy all I see is an announcement that says "be mature and adult and dont break the law".
 

yardornate

First Post
I would be curious to know, if at least this article has brought these women some closure?

Those women shared their stories for a reason, and in the interest of protecting their own anonymity, I doubt we'll ever hear them express their opinions and feelings on this thread or on Fannon's responses. None of these posts seem to indicate that he's had the opportunity to actually speak to those women and address their concerns/own his part about what occurred.

I can only hope that behind the scenes they are actually addressing this as individuals and encouraging a culture of communication - even when it's about a profoundly unpleasant and uncomfortable topic.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe any accusation from any accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me. Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense.

I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that [MENTION=6803203]DemoMonkey[/MENTION] has set up is that he's presenting it as a universal; as if you have to either always believe the accusers or always believe the accused. This struck me as the core of [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION]'s concern also.

Where DemoMonkey has the right of it is that the dichotomy is true for every individual event. Which isn't to say that everyone literally is choosing to either believe the accusers or believe the accused. But that, in regards to outcomes, at least in the sense that there should be any consequences at all or not, there are really only two sides. So maybe the dichotomy isn't so much about belief as it is about choosing a side. When there are only two outcomes, both of which are mutually exclusive to each other, there is no ability to "not choose a side". Not choosing a side is, in essence, choosing the side of status quo. In this case, that means choosing the side of the accused.

Choosing to disbelieve both sides, as long as one is capable of overcoming the severe cognitive dissonance required to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs (stranger things have happened), is choosing the side of the accused. Saying that you believe the accusers but still don't think there should be consequences is choosing the side of the accused. Refusing to engage with the conversation at all is choosing the side of the accused.

I'm not saying this necessarily as a value statement (though I do clearly have a bias here); simply to be informational. If anyone in this thread believes that there shouldn't be any consequences for the accused, but they also do not think they are taking the side of the accused, they are, sadly, mistaken.
 

Has there ever been a point in history where a fanatic goes on a crusade and it turns out justice was served? I can't think of one.

Minor point - but I absolutely can think of many. In fact, nearly every instance of society changing and justice being done were initially lead by people many called fanatics. Of course, now in hindsight we'd say "Oh, they weren't fanatics." but the vast majority of the time, who we call a fanatic often has far less to do with any fanaticism and more to do with how much we happen agree with them.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
snip ...

Now, perhaps by "investigate" perhaps you mean interview and ask others if they experienced behaviour without being specific. That's great.
How would you propose to do that for tens of thousands of convention goers spread out over three continents?
There's no way other than to go public and ask for people to come forward.

....
This bit caused me to consider that it would be in the interest of convention organisers to club together and reach to a major university sociology department and actually organise an anonymous survey of female con goers to ask this very question. Rather than have accusations dripping out and reacting behind the curve all the time. Get some data to determine how big the issue is and how prevalent.

Waiting for data is no excuse for not acting but there is an advantage of getting data because if reportage of harassment is anything like reporting to police of actual sexual assault then this is only the tip of the iceberg and the actual incidents of harassment is much larger than reported (which is I suspect is the case).
 

TreChriron

Adventurer
Supporter
...

I can only hope that behind the scenes they are actually addressing this as individuals and encouraging a culture of communication - even when it's about a profoundly unpleasant and uncomfortable topic.

I hope so too. I feel like instead of the tabloid attention-grabbing sensationalism this article was trying to nab, that the better solution here would have to been to facilitate that conversation. Perhaps impart some learning on the individual. It hardly needed to be dragged out into the public so ENWorld could get a few more clicks. What could have been an excellent teaching moment for the hobby is now just an absurd parody of "justice". What a shame.
 


UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
This is all word against word, there is no reason why anyone harassed in the last 20 years has had any reason to feel that they could not go to the police. If you were harassed them go to the authorities. If it was not important enough to you to take the proper steps to protect yourself and to protect others from possible future acts of said person then should it really be discussed here? Because at this point, well after the fact no one here has a single fact and all that happens is character assassination against the alleged perpetrator and of the alleged victim, and neither action does anyone any good.

As a second point do we need "policies" in place that basically say you cannot break the law at our convention? Looking at the Gen Con policy all I see is an announcement that says "be mature and adult and dont break the law".
Starting with your second point, we do need policies and any convention nowadays should have somebody and a place a booth or something where should thing can be reported and somebody there with a clear procedure as to how to handle a complaint. Why because we are living in a world that increasingly will not put up with things as they were.

Now according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2016 only 23% or rape and sexual assault crimes were reported to the authorities https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16_sum.pdf and as far as I know that reporting average is pretty typical of the Western world. So if the reporting rate is so low for serious personal crimes against women, how likely are women to report harassment?

So the second reason for clear policies and reporting lines is so women believe they can make such a report and that they will be treated seriously and with respect.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top