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

Hussar

Legend
How do you police room parties though? Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room. And, fair enough if all con's are in Boston, but, heck, the uni con I used to go to many years ago was on campus. My campus (University of Western) had dorm on campus plus several bars and a decent sized night club.

I get that policing the con itself is probably a good thing. But, I'm not convinced that the con can really do much about what people do off site. I really do think that education is the key here, more than trying to enforce rules that realistically, you can't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
How do you police room parties though? Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room. And, fair enough if all con's are in Boston, but, heck, the uni con I used to go to many years ago was on campus. My campus (University of Western) had dorm on campus plus several bars and a decent sized night club.

I get that policing the con itself is probably a good thing. But, I'm not convinced that the con can really do much about what people do off site. I really do think that education is the key here, more than trying to enforce rules that realistically, you can't.

Oh, they police room parties - at least to a degree. If the con's at the hotel, and con-goers are at the hotel, then pretty much any event the con-goers host will reflect on that con. Con security will respond to complaints about the room parties (at least they do in the cons I got to in Wisconsin). Realistically, they have too and they'll work with the hotel management, police, and emergency responders as best they can.

Obviously, stuff down the street and off the con site, there's little they affect. But room parties at the con site - they'll be policed as needed.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Not every hotel has alcohol in that funny little fridge in the hotel room.

And, for the rest, it really depends on the site. One con in the Boston area happens in January. Temperatures are typically in the teens or lower. Its out by the waterfront, so it is windy, and it is about a half mile from anything but the hotel's bar, which sure as heck can't manage to serve the 4000+ who go to the convention. Room parties are key to the drinker's life at the convention.
Perhaps true for cons held in a single hotel. My experience is with GenCon and our local (once in a while) con here, both of which are run out of a dedicated convention centre rather than a hotel and whose attendees' accommodations are thus spread out over the town a bit.

I think eliminating the room parties would have a major impact on the con - membership would probably drop precipitously, to be honest. But doing so would drastically increase teh amount of effort needed to get drunk at the con, and would therefore probably reduce several kidns of incidents, harassment among them.
Membership dropping precipitously enough to kill the con outright is probably not the intended end result; so the question becomes one of - should such a policy be implemented - how much membership loss this con can absorb and still remain viable.

Lanefan
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
How do you police room parties though? Sure, the con could not have a "party room" but, if I'm paying to stay in my own hotel room, I don't think it's too likely that you can stop me from having drinks with people in my own room.

It is possible that you could have a couple of people in your room for drinks, sure. But you are not having *thirty* people in yoru room getting drunk - this is what a typicaly "room party" is like) - they will be too loud, and folks trying to sleep will call the front desk to have you shut up. Heck, that can happen with four people, if they happen to be rowdy drunks.
 

Riley37

First Post
Wild speculative theory here, no claim of expertise:

It might be useful, to add to the list of proscribed behaviors, "getting so intoxicated, that one neglects reasonable basic self care." If a participant is sloshing along the stairway so clumsily, that bystanders are worried that person will fall and get hurt, then at THAT point, the participant's personal choices are intrusive to others. There are equivalent levels of self-care deterioration for intoxicants other than alcohol.

Any further deterrence of drinking, however, becomes an attempt to police the personal choices of participants *for the sake of policing*, not for the sake of preventing consequences to others. Effort poured into that attempt, is effort which would be more useful if we put it directly into deterring sexual harassment.

Let's focus on deterring behavior which an aggressor imposes onto an unwilling recipient. Let's focus on deterring *non-consensual* behavior. In order to clearly convey that focus, let's minimize grounds for confusing the Consent Patrol, with the Puritan Morality Patrol, who want to stop anyone from drinking *pro se*, and sexual behavior *pro se*, and dancing *pro se*, and gambling *pro se* (which means they're going to confiscate ALL THE DICE!).

For what it's worth, I personally don't get handsy, grabby, overbearing or loud when drunk. I understand that others do; but let me get drunk, and I'll just sit quietly and watch the world go by; if someone gets handsy, grabby, overbearing or unpleasantly loud, then deal with those *behaviors*, not the percentage of alcohol in their bloodstream.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
Membership dropping precipitously enough to kill the con outright is probably not the intended end result; so the question becomes one of - should such a policy be implemented - how much membership loss this con can absorb and still remain viable.
On the other side, is people who will be more interested in showing up BECAUSE "drunks will be drunks" showed up and interfered with their fun at another Con, and the attendees want to just stay away from that happening all over again.
I don't have any data on how many people would leave / would come, though. I will rough-guess that they would balance out - I'm not aware of people who HAVE to get drunk in order to enjoy themselves.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
On the other side, is people who will be more interested in showing up BECAUSE "drunks will be drunks" showed up and interfered with their fun at another Con, and the attendees want to just stay away from that happening all over again.
I don't have any data on how many people would leave / would come, though. I will rough-guess that they would balance out - I'm not aware of people who HAVE to get drunk in order to enjoy themselves.
Umbran said:
And, for the rest, it really depends on the site. One con in the Boston area happens in January. Temperatures are typically in the teens or lower. Its out by the waterfront, so it is windy, and it is about a half mile from anything but the hotel's bar, which sure as heck can't manage to serve the 4000+ who go to the convention. Room parties are key to the drinker's life at the convention.

I think eliminating the room parties would have a major impact on the con - membership would probably drop precipitously, to be honest. But doing so would drastically increase teh amount of effort needed to get drunk at the con, and would therefore probably reduce several kidns of incidents, harassment among them.
I was speaking of this speculation as posted by Umbran regarding a single-hotel-based con that it seems he's familiar with.
 

jimtillman

Explorer
That, and as I recall, alcohol was the problem with whats-his-bucket from Frog God Games. Sorry I'm terrible with names.

And at least one of the specific recounted stories by posters in this thread that named names was about someone with a similar problem.

And again there is plenty of non-convention based statistics that indicate rates of harassment (and other bad behaviour) increase dramatically in places where alcohol is served, and among alcoholics.

So drawing a correlation between alcohol and harassment is not a hard one.

It comes down to this: what do people go to nerdy conventions for?
Liquor? Or nerdy stuff?
I'm going to assume its the latter, and that there are likely a multitude of venues for liquor outside of the convention. So what, exactly, is lost if we were to remove alcohol from the equation? The ability to get drunk while at a con? Hardly a loss in my book.


depends on the con people go to different cons for different things
gencon for example is a gaming con and most people are there to play games

while dragoncon is largely known for partying.

rules against drinking in the gencon convention hall would likely not be an issue with the vast majority of attenders,.

but banning drinks from dragoncon would piss a lot of people off.
 

Catulle

Hero
The extended segue into "what if" territory about drinking seems to me to be something that may be addressed by taking a strong and explicit policy stance against any kind of mitigation related to it (c.f. Bill Webb, as referenced above) and thereby catch harassment and general anti-social behaviour under the same auspices.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
depends on the con people go to different cons for different things
gencon for example is a gaming con and most people are there to play games

while dragoncon is largely known for partying.

rules against drinking in the gencon convention hall would likely not be an issue with the vast majority of attenders,.

but banning drinks from dragoncon would piss a lot of people off.

These aren't, for obvious reasons, universal rules. But if other cons banned alcohol and saw a drop in harassment reports, and Dragoncon didn't, then either its reputation as a "party con" would grow, or it would start to pick up other, not-so-nice reputations.

In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.

We want to reduce harassment. Harassment is a type of behaviour, so what we want to do is police behaviour while at a con. Drinking is incidental in this case as people who are likely to harass while drunk are probably also people who would harass while sober, if maybe they would be less obvious about it. Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be obviously harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it. People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top