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

pemerton

Legend
George Orwell did not think that Stalinism should be tolerated. In fact, he cooperated with the British secret service to identify Communists.

Whether he was right or wrong to do so seems OT for this thread. But the fact that he did tells us about his views on toleration.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S

Sunseeker

Guest
You are saying because Imaginary Jane might act out we cannot invite Imaginary Bill to Con.
I was questioning what the appropriate response was. If we asked Bill not to talk about his political opinions, then my first reaction would be to go after Jane. If Bill then goes and shoots his mouth off anyway, my reaction would be to remove both of them.
Yet, imaginary Jane can wear skimpy Cosplay clothing to Cons despite the fact that Imaginary Bill might act out?
You're about two sentences away from asking why if that girl didn't want to get raped she wore skimpy clothing. Whoever is acting out is the problem. Pretty simple.

So in the first instance Imaginary Bill is at fault even if he did nothing wrong.
Well, technically in my situation his attendance was predicated on keeping his opinions to himself.

At which point does Imaginary Jane take responsibility for her own actions?
See above.

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.
Are we? Maybe if that speaker is isolated to a pocket dimension (like a private room). But it's not like their stalls stop existing when we stop looking at them, this isn't Schrodinger's Con Booth. It's not like they're not audible because we don't care what they have to say. It's not like their booth may not be located right next to the booth I actually want to go to. We can't put a big "CENSORED" bar over him when we look in that general direction.

When I went to college we had several visits from the "God hates fags!" types. Loud, obnoxious, confrontational. Their only purpose there was to get someone to fight them and then sue the university for not protecting their rights. They weren't there for "honest debate", they weren't there for "free expression". They were there to be assclowns.

At what point do we stop and say "Does this one guy's right to be an assclown really trump these thousands of other people's rights not to put up with his garbage."?

Because that's what YOU are also defending. The right for some clown to be a clown, to piss off as many people as they can, to try and start fights, for no other reason than to play the victim afterward.
 

Sadras

Legend
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 do not believe anyone will disagree with you on this, it is easier.

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.

Do you realise what you have just implied here? Essentially, you're essentially condoning an attitude of I'm too tired to understand you so please leave.

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.

No comment.

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.

See what I did above. I limited discussion.

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.

Were they called a bunch of names for initially inviting him?
 

Sadras

Legend
I was questioning what the appropriate response was. If we asked Bill not to talk about his political opinions, then my first reaction would be to go after Jane. If Bill then goes and shoots his mouth off anyway, my reaction would be to remove both of them.

and

You're about two sentences away from asking why if that girl didn't want to get raped she wore skimpy clothing. Whoever is acting out is the problem. Pretty simple.

Agree.

Well, technically in my situation his attendance was predicated on keeping his opinions to himself.

Yes and I'm all for that, but that wasn't even an option offered. Not that it had to be, the Con is free to do as it likes.

Are we? Maybe if that speaker is isolated to a pocket dimension (like a private room). But it's not like their stalls stop existing when we stop looking at them, this isn't Schrodinger's Con Booth. It's not like they're not audible because we don't care what they have to say. It's not like their booth may not be located right next to the booth I actually want to go to. We can't put a big "CENSORED" bar over him when we look in that general direction.

At what point do we stop and say "Does this one guy's right to be an assclown really trump these thousands of other people's rights not to put up with his garbage."?

Because that's what YOU are also defending. The right for some clown to be a clown, to piss off as many people as they can, to try and start fights, for no other reason than to play the victim afterward.

Sorry this took me a while to understand in context. I'm not defending him from being an assclown or anyone for that matter. I do not support the Sad Puppies. Like I said before this is a Gaming Con.

Again I ask do you want to ban him from all life? Because you do not only not want to see him as a speaker but also from having a stall/booth and presumably you do not want to see him anywhere at the Con.

I mean if that was what you were getting at, why did you even bother with the whole Imaginary Bill scenario? I suspect it is easier for you to make a case about Imaginary Bill having every -ism, ist and -phobic under the sun than actually prove that Larry is anyone of these things he is being accused of being.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Sorry this took me a while to understand in context. I'm not defending him from being an assclown or anyone for that matter.

Again I ask do you want to ban him from all life? Because you do not only not want to see him as a speaker but also from having a stall/booth and presumably you do not want to see him anywhere at the Con.
If the behaviour is severe enough or repeated enough, sure.

I mean if that was what you were getting at, why did you even bother with the whole Imaginary Bill scenario? I suspect it is easier for you to make a case about Imaginary Bill having every -ism, ist and -phobic under the sun than actually prove that Larry is anyone of these things he is being accused of being.
Probably because I already said I'm not up to date on the Larry case. How many more times do you want me to repeat it?

Stop trying to warp the conversation by forcing the issue to be about this one guy. I'm frelling sick of it. I'm about two more "What about Laaaarrrryyy!????"s from putting you on my ignore list for it.

I know how these games work. I ain't playing.
 

Sadras

Legend
If the behaviour is severe enough or repeated enough, sure.

Revisiting your initial post to me I feel then I have answered your query between my posts to you and to @dragoner.

Specifically (1) dealing with what is considered extreme can be murky and (2) that whose outrage is more important, those that want him/x or those that don't. And yes it is easier to just uninvite him/x. It is not necessarily the correct choice.

Stop trying to warp the conversation by forcing the issue to be about this one guy. I'm frelling sick of it.

The difference between your example about the kids and this Larry/x - is that they (the kids) had nothing to gain but being clowns, while this guy/x is at a Gaming Con presumably to sell/promote his products. There ended.

I'm about two more "What about Laaaarrrryyy!????"s from putting you on my ignore list for it.
I know how these games work. I ain't playing.

Good grief. Where am I?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Riley37

First Post
The only speech that has been limited is that which either directly causes or has a high likelihood of directly causing physical harm to someone, like yelling fire in a theater.

That's not a true statement. How strong is your interest in factual accuracy? Who is more committed to factual accuracy: you, or your ex-girlfriend?

As an example: In 1986, the Daily Star published a story about Jeffrey Archer's relationship with a prostitute. Archer sued for libel, a court ruled in his favor, and the court required the Daily Star to fork over £500,000. When a court can require someone to pay up, in that amount, *that's a legally imposed limit on the freedom of speech*. Another court reviewed Archer's testimony in the libel case, and then in 2001 convicted Archer of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Archer spent two full years in jail. That's *also* a limit on speech, and it's not a case of imminent danger such as shouting "movie!" in a crowded firehouse.

More generally: other forms of illegal speech include consumer fraud, filing a false police report, forgery, seditious libel, false statements about one’s military decorations, various forms of pornography, and publication of classified information. There are numbers which are illegal to publish, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (I would provide an example, of those numbers, except that including the number in this post would violate the EN World terms of service.) And that's just in the English-speaking world; Germany has a law about Holocaust denial.

I'm noticing an interesting pattern in this thread, about who limits their assertions by factual accuracy, and who doesn't, and where they stand on the harassment issue.

Participants in this thread have mentioned the distinction between "governmental limits on speech" and "private entity limits on speech" more than once. (So did J.S. Mill in an excellent essay "On Liberty.") When the BWBBB conflates the two, then walks back their claim when refuted and sets up new debate goalposts, then conflates the two again, then walks back when refuted again, then moves the goalposts again... lather, rinse, repeat... what conclusions can we draw from that pattern of behavior?
 


Riley37

First Post
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 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.

A prudent choice. Correia isn't supremacist, nor sympathetic to white supremacism. He does not mind doing business with people across differences of skin color, nor does he care about the color of who's living next door. He won't be the next lawyer to flip out and threaten to call ICE just because people speak Spanish to each other, consensually, in a restaurant. (Yes, this happened recently, in New York City.) His nominations for the Sad Puppies slate included writers of color.

Correia once mocked someone, extensively, for talking about race as an issue in the TRPG community. IMO his tone was pointedly uncharitable; but his thesis, insofar as he had one, boiled down to "get over your feelings and roll the dice", rather than "accept your genetic inferiority". He allied with Vox Day, a fervent white supremacist, but that's more because Correia was trolling as hard as he could possibly troll, rather than because he agrees with Vox Day on race issues. Correia's words: "I nominated Vox Day because Satan didn’t have any eligible works that period." Correia's position on race is far from *my* position, but at least he isn't calling for the revival of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

Not that Origins asked my opinion on him, when making *their* decision, which was *theirs* to make, about who *they* (Origins) wanted, at the microphone, at a lectern, as *their* Guest of Honor, in a room which *they* rented from a convention center. Who decides the limits of free speech? Well, *they* do, on *their* platform. (Within, that is, the limits of the law, which puts many restrictions on speech, such as fraud, elections-related advertising, slander, pornography, seditious libel, assassination threats, phone call spam, and did I mention certain prime numbers?)

Correia's past conduct at cons which include awards ceremonies, though, now THAT is a deal-breaker. I imagine that the Origins planners reviewed how the Sad Puppies affected Worldcon, and the personal lives of the Worldcon planners, and they concluded "That's not what I want for us and for our convention". Or as John Ward, executive director of Worldcon said, "We focus on fun and gaming, not discourse and controversy."

So, no matter what anyone here thinks about how Origins handles decisions about their guest of honor, here's my question: how can Origins handle harassment, on site, during the con, related to those decisions? And what would you willingly give up, if you attended Origins 2018, towards the goal of a harassment-free conference?
 

Riley37

First Post
Aaaaand we're done.

If you mean that you and she are done, then I hope that is, indeed, a factually accurate statement. You make factually accurate statements, now and then... among other ones.

He wasn't there to discuss his personal views, whatever they may be. He was there to discuss his writing.

Wow, now THAT was a recklessly non-factual assertion; quite a whopper. When has Correia ever discussed his writing, without also, in the process, discussing his personal views?

(Answer that question, directly and factually, if you can! One example would suffice, but two examples - with citations or links - would be a slam-dunk come-back.)

The first chapter of the first book in the Monster Hunter series lays out Correia's views on firearm rights, and then has his protagonist use a concealed-carry firearm (a pistol in an ankle holster) to kill a werewolf. Which is fine by me, killing that werewolf was legitimate self-defense, but it's a thinly-veiled example of putting one's personal politics into one's genre fiction. He almost said "the only way to stop a bad werewolf, is a good guy with a gun". Almost.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top