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

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Absolutely, but presumably though Larry would be discussing his RPG and any games/books in the works, even perhaps painting of miniatures. Again it is a gaming con.

People are also able to disagree in civil conversation. The little exchange I saw between his open letter to GRRM and GRRM's reply on his Not a Blog was quite respectful. Kudos to them.

The problem becomes, how much can we separate Larry, or anyone with extreme views, from their work and their business.
When do we start asking how much of their personal views are reflected in their business?

If we know that Imaginary Bill is, in his off time, a white supremacist, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view? Even subtly? If Imaginary Bill doesn't value women, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view as well? How do we differentiate Bill's Patriarchal White-Majority Human-Dominated world from his own views, and from the fact that that's what a lot of D&D worlds look like? Did Bill make his world that way because he's trying to promote his views through his work, consciously or unconsciously, or did he make his world that way because that's the material he drew inspiration from? Did he draw inspiration from that particular material because it appealed to his ideology?

Lets say that we invite Imaginary Bill to a Con. What preemptive restrictions do we put on him, knowing the things he believes and espouses in his off time? Do we apply a general "Hey man, that other stuff, don't talk about it here?" Or do we stay silent? What do we do if Imaginary Jane approaches Bill and starts taking him to task over his white supremacist views? Is Bill allowed to promote his views now that he's been challenged on them? Or is Bill asked to remain silent and ask Jane to go away, or if she gets aggressive, ask Con Security to handle her?

This is a reason why a lot of people with extreme views may be disinvited from a lot of events. The Event simply doesn't want to deal with these potential issues. Even if Bill is on his best behaviour, someone else might not be. Bill might slip up, Bills "gaming products" might actually be a promotion of his views. It's easier to go find someone who makes good gaming products who isn't a racist, a sexist, or whatever.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Absolutely, but presumably though Larry would be discussing his RPG and any games/books in the works, even perhaps painting of miniatures. Again it is a gaming con.

People are also able to disagree in civil conversation. The little exchange I saw between his open letter to GRRM and GRRM's reply on his Not a Blog was quite respectful. Kudos to them.

Yes and no, I know from having to moderate people on facebook it's one of my least favorite things to do, people do things that draw a huge number of complaints and it's easier to just kick them from the group rather than to try to discuss it. I'm sorry for it to be that way, but experience says usually try to talk about it doesn't work. Time gives context to events too, I'm sure many are getting emotional fatigue from dealing with right wingers that have been energized by the last election, and it gets difficult to parse who exactly said or believes what. Hanging out with nazis isn't cool (like vox day), and I have literally heard people say that hitler is the white MLK; my response is no, I don't even want to or am going to deal with that.

So while they are running a con and doing a bunch of other stuff, then issues arise, and where there is no stopping the discussion of other things people have said, rather than limiting discussion only to painted minis, which is probably impossible. Then they get called a bunch of names such as cowards which means they aren't going to change their response back to re-invite him.
 

Sadras

Legend
The problem becomes, how much can we separate Larry, or anyone with extreme views, from their work and their business. When do we start asking how much of their personal views are reflected in their business?

Good question. I would imagine it should be taken on a on a case by case basis given that we should be judged as individuals.
But lets spin the question around who decides what extreme views are? How much outrage is too much given the sock puppet technology available these days? And who is 'we' who will be asking about someone's personal views?

If we know that Imaginary Bill is, in his off time, a white supremacist, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view? Even subtly? If Imaginary Bill doesn't value women, how do we know that Bill's work doesn't reflect that view as well? How do we differentiate Bill's Patriarchal White-Majority Human-Dominated world from his own views, and from the fact that that's what a lot of D&D worlds look like? Did Bill make his world that way because he's trying to promote his views through his work, consciously or unconsciously, or did he make his world that way because that's the material he drew inspiration from? Did he draw inspiration from that particular material because it appealed to his ideology?

I think I asked a similar question much earlier in the thread where I mentioned my table recently discussed whether we separate the work/art from the person. Weinstein from the movies, Allen from his movies, Cosby from the show...etc
Who is not going to watch The Usual Suspects anymore because of Kevin Spacey?
The majority of the replies on Enworld I believe were that we have to separate the artist from their work. It is a hard question. What is your take?

Lets say that we invite Imaginary Bill to a Con. What preemptive restrictions do we put on him, knowing the things he believes and espouses in his off time? Do we apply a general "Hey man, that other stuff, don't talk about it here?" Or do we stay silent? What do we do if Imaginary Jane approaches Bill and starts taking him to task over his white supremacist views? Is Bill allowed to promote his views now that he's been challenged on them? Or is Bill asked to remain silent and ask Jane to go away, or if she gets aggressive, ask Con Security to handle her?

This is a reason why a lot of people with extreme views may be disinvited from a lot of events. The Event simply doesn't want to deal with these potential issues. Even if Bill is on his best behaviour, someone else might not be. Bill might slip up, Bills "gaming products" might actually be a promotion of his views. It's easier to go find someone who makes good gaming products who isn't a racist, a sexist, or whatever.

I'm not going to discuss the defense of Imaginary Bill since you have already painted him to be a racist/sexist whatever. There is no discussion of whether he is or isn't. Your example paints him that he unequivocally IS.
Furthermore I cannot fully answer your question without going against board rules and discussing the politics and violence which took place during the election process, because based on the type of questions you're asking one might argue that you wish cities and town halls to disinvite political candidates because of possible violent Imaginary Janes because its easier.... A lot can be said about creating that kind of environment.

Even on this board we have various people who feel pretty strongly about certain D&D editions or playstyles, they view certain editions/playstyles as an extreme perversions of the game. Enworld's rules are, all types are allowed on here but conversation regarding the editions and people's D&D ideology has to remain civil and not inflammatory. Enworld doesn't demand all supporters of 3.x refrain from signing up or even discussing 3.x
They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Particle_Man

Explorer
Legally no, but for Origins Harassment Policy (which is all that matters in this case) yes.

"Harassment is generally any behavior that alarms, threatens, or excessively annoys another person or group."

I think they would class it as annoying.

So that would be the rule that Larry broke.
 

Hussar

Legend
Sadras said:
They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?

Well, someone earlier mentioned that Origins harassment policy included something along the lines of, "annoy other people", so, yup, he absolutely has broken that rule. It's an easy rule to break and, they can choose to enforce it in any way they see fit, that is absolutely their right to do so.

And, please note, he can still GO to the convention. There's nothing saying that he cannot attend. He just isn't being given a pulpit or a position which makes it appear that the convention endorses his actions. Because, as a guest of honor, it gives the appearance that his actions are in keeping with what Origins represents.

So, what's the problem here? Origins obviously feels that his views do not represent what Origins wants to be associated with. They likely feel this way because after they announced giving him a place of honor, they got a bunch of angry push back. Which runs foul of their "don't annoy people policy" and end of story.

You most certainly can hold any view you want. That's absolutely your right. But, you do not have the right to be endorsed by anyone else.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Good question. I would imagine it should be taken on a on a case by case basis given that we should be judged as individuals.
But lets spin the question around who decides what extreme views are? How much outrage is too much given the sock puppet technology available these days? And who is 'we' who will be asking about someone's personal views?
I think it's fairly clear what views are extreme or not. We shouldn't be sitting around wondering if exterminating, or even deporting all the non-white people is a "normal" viewpoint. We had that discussion back in the 1940s. Which view do you think won?

And yes, to some degree it is a case-by case basis. But if Larry or Imaginary Bill has a blog where they promote white supremacist views we're not really "asking" them about their views. They're volunteering them. We can make decisions based on that information, or update decisions we already made with new information.

I think I asked a similar question much earlier in the thread where I mentioned my table recently discussed whether we separate the work/art from the person. Weinstein from the movies, Allen from his movies, Cosby from the show...etc
Who is not going to watch The Usual Suspects anymore because of Kevin Spacey?
The majority of the replies on Enworld I believe were that we have to separate the artist from their work. It is a hard question. What is your take?
I can't, in good conscience, separate views from products. Because when I watch the Cosby show, money from airing that show supports Cosby. So by viewing the Cosby show I have supported a rapist. Doesn't matter if there's someone in the middle. My views generated him income. So I don't watch those shows.

There is a degree of separation of course. Lets say that a rapist or a neo-nazi was an electrician involved in setting up the lights for Infinity War. (it's entirely possible given the number of people involved in movie production) That's different than say, not watching it before you found out one of the main actors did something bad.

But I don't think that's helpful in this context. In the context of game creation, people like Jeremy Crawford or Larry are directly involved in the creation of the product, and the end result is a direct result of their vision for it.

I'm not going to discuss the defense of Imaginary Bill since you have already painted him to be a racist/sexist whatever. There is no discussion of whether he is or isn't. Your example paints him that he unequivocally IS.
Yes I'm sorry wasn't that the point? We know XYZ person has crazy views, should they be invited if they can keep their views to themselves? Did I misread your point there?

Furthermore I cannot fully answer your question without going against board rules and discussing the politics and violence which took place during the election process, because based on the type of questions you're asking one might argue that you wish cities and town halls to disinvite political candidates because of possible violent Imaginary Janes because its easier.... A lot can be said about creating that kind of environment.
I'm sure you can figure out a way. We've been discussing politics this entire thread. The mods have been generally lenient on it.

Even on this board we have various people who feel pretty strongly about certain D&D editions or playstyles, they view certain editions/playstyles as an extreme perversions of the game. Enworld's rules are, all types are allowed on here but conversation regarding the editions and people's D&D ideology has to remain civil and not inflammatory. Enworld doesn't demand all supporters of 3.x refrain from signing up or even discussing 3.x
I don't know. I've ignored a much larger number of people on this board than any other, because the ignore feature actually lets me IGNORE them instead of replacing thier post with a big teaser saying: HEEEEEEY! THAT GUY YOU DON'T LIKE JUST POSTED, CLICK HERE TO VIEW THEIR POST! Kinda defeats the point ya know?

Most of the remaining people are people with whom even when I disagree with, it's a polite disagreement. The people I have on ignore, like Maxperson, it is impossible to disagree with civilly.

They do not disinvite people unless they have broken the rules. Has Larry broken any rules of Origin?
I know neither the rules for Origin nor their invitation process nor the particulars of the Larry case and therefore cannot comment.

This is why I used Imaginary Bill.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Not at all, it would be insane for them to let their con become the vehicle for someone to spew venomous hate.

That wasn't what was going to happen, though. He wasn't there to discuss his personal views, whatever they may be. He was there to discuss his writing.

Using free speech to destroy free speech is irrational.
As opposed to destroying free speech by limiting speech?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Would someone please tell @Shidaku that it's poor form to block someone and then talk about that person. I happen to have many civil disagreements with people on the forum. If someone is unable to have a civil discussion with me, it's generally because that person drags the conversation down.
 

Sadras

Legend
I think it's fairly clear what views are extreme or not.

Sometimes, I mean people have different levels of sensitivity about a variety of issues. There are various people that get disinvited from college campuses because x many people determined that the speaker invited was perpetuating an extremist view. I'm afraid I have to disagree things are not so clear.

But if Larry or Imaginary Bill has a blog where they promote white supremacist views we're not really "asking" them about their views. They're volunteering them. We can make decisions based on that information, or update decisions we already made with new information.

Sure, but we need to make sure it does not become fact due to someone's half-assed conclusions/presumptions (and this seems to happen a lot).

Yes I'm sorry wasn't that the point? We know XYZ person has crazy views, should they be invited if they can keep their views to themselves? Did I misread your point there?

I would agree that if someone came out and outed themselves as a racist then yes disinvite that person, but that is a ridiculously easy example. It is rarely that easy and clear cut. Real life is usually a lot messier. Is Larry a racist? If yes, show me. Is Larry a sexist? If yes, show me. I will support your decision to disinvite him 100%. Subjectivity makes things a lot messier.
Some people feel that he should be disinvited because of Sad Puppies, others do not. Obviously the Con gets to choose.

I'm sure you can figure out a way. We've been discussing politics this entire thread. The mods have been generally lenient on it.

Politics can be polarising. Certain speakers at various locations can cause upsets - even if they behave completely civil. Does that mean politicians should not be allowed to campaign or be disinvited from certain interviews because of feelings or because people do not know how to behave?

To return this to topic
You are saying because Imaginary Jane might act out we cannot invite Imaginary Bill to Con.
Yet, imaginary Jane can wear skimpy Cosplay clothing to Cons despite the fact that Imaginary Bill might act out?

So in the first instance Imaginary Bill is at fault even if he did nothing wrong.
And in the second instance Imaginary Bill is at fault because he did something wrong.
At which point does Imaginary Jane take responsibility for her own actions?

I don't know. I've ignored a much larger number of people on this board than any other, because the ignore feature actually lets me IGNORE them instead of replacing thier post with a big teaser saying: HEEEEEEY! THAT GUY YOU DON'T LIKE JUST POSTED, CLICK HERE TO VIEW THEIR POST! Kinda defeats the point ya know?

True. At Conventions we are free ignore the boring or annoying speakers (for us) and not go to their stalls/presentations.
Ignoring is different to disinviting.

I know neither the rules for Origin nor their invitation process nor the particulars of the Larry case and therefore cannot comment.

Cool. It was answered by others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top