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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
This isn't journalism and isn't in keeping with the standards I've come to expect from this site. Poor form.

Huh. Join date of today. Post count 1. Using a smokescreen of criticizing "journalism" to attack the article outing a misbehaving man. I'm guessing sock puppet who probably thinks GamerGaters weren't misogynists.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that @DemoMonkey 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 @Caliban'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.


Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it. Feels a bit like voting for third parties in America, though. Is an otherwise liberal voter who dislikes the major party candidate and therefore votes "independent" voting against their ideals by voting for a losing candidate?

This also doesn't really address the potentially very wide gradient of the severity of expected consequences. Formal apology? Financial damages? Incarceration? Is the "he's already apologized" group "on the side" of the accused or the accuser?
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it. Feels a bit like voting for third parties in America, though. Is an otherwise liberal voter who dislikes the major party candidate and therefore votes "independent" voting against their ideals by voting for a losing candidate?

As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or to use the other construction, "Hell is full of good meanings but Heaven is full of good works." [emphasis mine] While I may applaud good intentions, if the end result is the opposite, what good have you actually done?

So, yeah, very much like voting for a third party candidate who literally cannot win in a system like that in the US. All you do is split the opposition to the candidate whose positions are even worse than the closer-aligned one you don't happen to like.
 

As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or to use the other construction, "Hell is full of good meanings but Heaven is full of good works." [emphasis mine] While I may applaud good intentions, if the end result is the opposite, what good have you actually done?

So, yeah, very much like voting for a third party candidate who literally cannot win in a system like that in the US. All you do is split the opposition to the candidate whose positions are even worse than the closer-aligned one you don't happen to like.

Ennnh..or alternatively, "the choice of the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil" (in point of fact the action taken in your conclusion and the reasoning for it parallel the underlying meaning of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- moral compromise for good reasons)

In any case, I'll leave further political discussion aside (with my apologies).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AJ the Ronin

First Post
Isn't the anonymity of some of the people in the article been compromised by a post in this thread?

Shouldn't the mods continue to protect said anonymity?
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Hmmm..defining personal affiliation by the effects (or lack thereof) of one's actions rather than intent behind one's actions is an interesting way to look at it.

As far as I'm concerned that the's really the only rational way to look at... well, anything. And I don't mean that to say that someone's intent is irrelevant, as is sometimes the ideology of social justice spaces; I think there's a tendency to crucify people by the impact of their actions when they are more effective and civil ways to address the unintentional harm someone is doing. But I mean... yeah, if you hurt somebody, even if you didn't mean to... that still doesn't change the fact that you hurt the person. But intent should totally factor in to the response to the harm (which is why I personally took the approach I did, rather than lumping them in with the "witch-hunt" "SJW" crowd).

Indeed, popular culture is filled with references about how inaction in the face of evil (and if we can't get on the same page that sexual harassment is evil, if only an extremely banal form of it, we aren't going to see eye to eye on much) is, if not as bad as the evil itself, definitely emboldened and enabling that evil. From "the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" to Harry Potter's "if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy" to that excellent quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

You painting this as a novel and extreme notion is conversely odd to me.

This also doesn't really address the potentially very wide gradient of the severity of expected consequences. Formal apology? Financial damages? Incarceration?

Yes, this is a much more nuanced conversation, as I said in my first post on the subject.

Is the "he's already apologized" group "on the side" of the accused or the accuser?

This is a little trickier as it plays a part in that more nuanced discussion of "what is or is not an appropriate consequence", but it's definitely at least that far, because it at least acknowledges that both (a) the bad behavior happened (and thus the accusers are believed) and (b) that said behavior, at bare minimum, requires an apology from said bad actor. There's a more nuanced and subjective conversation to be had there about whether that does or does not constitute an appropriate consequence, and how truly appropriate that would be or not would depend on a lot more factors than I suspect we currently have information. There's a case to be made that that's a pretty low bar to clear, and one that might diminish the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment. But could it be an appropriate and acceptable consequence? I won't deny there's a possibility. I mean, it worked for Dan Harmon.

Of course, Dan Harmon acknowledged his behavior, acknowledged the harm he caused and the damage he did, and offered a sincere and heartfelt apology that showed that he had given serious thought to the impact of his actions and grown as a person in light of them, which was ultimately accepted by his accuser. I don't know if you read the individual in question's response earlier in this thread, but it... well, it was not anything like that. But there were also a few glimmers of contrition and sincerity towards the end that suggests that "lifetime banishment" might not be the appropriate consequence either.

There's a tendency to hyperbolically react to the calling to task of harassers within the gaming industry that they represent some call to immediately and permanently vilify those individuals, and while that is a voice in those conversations, they certainly aren't the only voice. I know that "people don't really change" is a fairly widely-held belief, but also one that I think is demonstrably incorrect. I think that there are certainly individuals incapable of change, but that that's far from universal, and probably a sign of something much deeper and much more troubling with the individual. I have always advocated that everyone should be given the opportunity to change themselves. The trouble is that a lot of people don't have the will or the desire to change. And when there's not any pressure to make them change, why should they?

[Edit: I want to make it clear that I do not personally demonize the notion that some behaviors are too far beyond the pale to ever be forgiven, regardless of the contrition or evidence of reform, nor do I intend to demonize the people that hold to that notion, whether or not the behavior in question is sexual harassment. Nobody's owed acceptance for their apologies, certainly not from those who the apologizer have directly harmed. Megan Ganz was in no way required to accept Dan Harmon's apology (a fact that Harmon acknowledged himself, within his apology), and if someone's stance is, for instance, not to attend an event with anybody who has ever been accused of harassment, regardless of the evidence of their reform, I cannot and will not blame them for that stance or hold that against them in any way. I just happen to be a big believer in the notion of restorative justice, personally.]

Which is, again, why I believe quite strongly in the dichotomy I discuss above. If you're not actively pushing for consequences for this sort of behavior, then you've either come down on the side of the accusers not being trustworthy and lying (which, as has been pointed out earlier upthread, is exceedingly rare, though not absolutely nonexistent, which is why I think the earlier attempt to paint the dichotomy as painting every instance the same was a little off-target), and that the impact of that, regardless of intention, is to support the accused.

I mean, I suppose there's a side-category, inclusive within that side mind you, that does believe the accusers but doesn't think those behaviors are a problem, or otherwise don't think any consequences should befall the accused as a result of those behaviors, but that's a very different group of people whose worldview are, subsequently, so incompatible with my own that I will not likely find common ground with them anyway, and who I can speak of with confidence as distinctly "part of the problem". But that's not really what I'm talking about here; the ship has sailed for me at this point in terms of taking the time or energy to engage with that level of toxicity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

innerdude

Legend
Thoughts on this, in no particular order:

  • I am supportive in general of ENWorld's attempts to publish salient, relevant content that connects the gaming community / gaming culture to broader social issues. One of the great benefits of the Internet and its underlying technologies is the ability to publish information in forums, locations, and formats so as to reach a potential audience. The choice by ENWorld leadership to attempt to facilitate broader social and cultural awareness of gamer-related issues is a net positive.

  • This particular article seems to be a well-intentioned yet flawed attempt to facilitate discussion. The summaries used by Chris Helton of Sean's responses felt incomplete, and to me did not accurately portray the range of nuance and situational context that Sean's later full disclosure provided. This is problematic, because the most compelling "evidence" portrayed in the article was from the sections Sean most vociferously declared to be outright fabrication.

  • I also found the description of the "hug" incident to be disproportionately incendiary relative to the degree of indiscretion. Sean made someone feel uncomfortable in a public gaming setting, that individual expressed their discomfort, and initially that discomfort was not addressed to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party. Yet if we are to believe Sean's account, that discomfort was later addressed in a professional, respectful manner such that both parties were able to resolve the initially perceived differences.

  • Despite the flaws in the article text, the repetition of accusations indicate an overall behavior pattern exhibited by Sean that may be problematic. He admits as such, and even goes so far as to admit past wrongdoing and expresses desire to change. In so doing I don't believe Sean deserves a "free pass" for problematic behavior. We only get so much benefit of the doubt from "exceptions to the rule" before the exception is no longer seen as such.

  • That said, I don't know that it is my place to necessarily be the arbiter of what would constitute appropriate reparation for any past behavior on Sean's part. I will say that there are portions of Sean's response that are encouraging, including the acceptance of responsibility for past actions, and a commitment on his part to improve. Until such time as those commitments are tested in a relevant public setting, we are to either take Sean at his word or not, as we deem.

  • I find attempts to sensationalize and polarize discussions on topics like this to be distasteful. There are real issues at stake here, with real implications for how we should look introspectively at our own lives and evaluate our behavior and our attitudes toward the greater good of humanity. The ability for people of both genders, but especially women, to feel safe, comfortable, and energized as a part of our hobby is something of tremendous importance; behavior that damages any participant of our hobby in some way also damages us. Likewise, it is tremendously important to take into account issues of prevailing justice, issues of privacy, issues of false accusation. I would say that the appropriate response from both sides would be to condemn bad behavior along both spectra. None of us are served by allowing individuals to purposefully cause harm, pain, and discomfort to other individuals through coercion, intimidation, and manipulation.

  • The right to be free from harassment is inextricably tied to the right of free association. By law, at least in the USA, we are afforded the right to freely assemble with like-minded individuals in private. Public association is different, as we do not always freely choose to associate with someone with whom we might come in contact with in a public setting, as both our rights to go to a public space are protected to certain degree. Public association is generally governed by the assumed right of consent---as soon as one party no longer consents to publicly be in the same "space" as another party, then it is up to some governing body---either the property owner of the space, or the actual government---to decide how to administer the assumed agreement that one party no longer consents to the presence of the other.

  • It is in this context that I think the article is most relevant, as all of us at some point have to decide how we are going to choose to act in accordance with that administration of policy, whether statutory/legal or otherwise. My takeaway from all of this is that I have to prepare myself to act as a good citizen, to be aware of the issue, to understand that inappropriate, harassing behavior is detrimental on its face to the well-being of society.

  • I do not know Sean Patrick Fannon personally. I have purchased several of his gaming products in the past, and have enjoyed their use in my games. I will likely to continue to use those materials. Having read the article, however, I would be remiss if I didn't at least acknowledge that some of the described behavior felt problematic, and that I would feel the need to evaluate future purchases of Sean's products with greater scrutiny.
 

damned

Explorer
The reason we need to speak out about these things is that if we dont it normalizes and makes the behavior ok if we stay silent. That is what has happened in the past. When we normalize X pretty soon someone starts on Y and then that can become normal and we move on to Z....

Im sure this experience has been unpleasant for Mr Fannon. The point of this is not to demonize him but to highlight the bahavior, address it, and as individuals and as a collective - learn from it and improve. Mr Fannon has acknowledged some culpability and apologized. We need to recognize when we are culpable whether by our actions or by not calling out others poor behavior and improve our behavior, and we need to acknowledge that many women (and also other segments of the population) inherently feel less safe at certain events or gatherings and do a better job of making these places safe.

Hopefully this will make all of us better people, and that all parties come out of this ok, the ladies and Mr Fannon included.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I will be cancelling my support for this site, my EONS subscription and seriously questioning my use of WOIN as a publisher until the two of you apologize to Mr. Fannon, reinstate him as a columnist and get back to doing what ENWorld was designed to do.

I'm willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that my speech - and by extension the speech of those I employ - is for sale; but you can do better than $3, surely? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top