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

Riley37

First Post
You're really going to point to Amber and it's rampant sexism as 'progressive'? Huh, never would have suspected that.

No, I'm not. Didn't then, and don't plan to. I pointed out one specific aspect, as an ethical principle which Zelazny established, and which Gygax, so far as I can tell, ignored, disregarded, and didn't bring into D&D: whether a Lord of Amber could recognize the worth of other humans *even partially*. Corwin didn't become an egalitarian, he just became *slightly less* of an elitist than his siblings. That said, this change saved at least one life, early in the first book, when he stopped Random from killing a guy for failing to show adequate deference, plus many lives in the mixed-race army when Corwin negotiated a surrender. Corwin was unusual, among his kind, in developing a sense of compassion. Doesn't mean he instantly, or even significantly, applied that compassion to fundamentally questioning and restructuring ALL his assumptions about ALL relationships.

If you jump to broader conclusions, such as my opinion on gender justice in Amber, and attack those broader conclusions as straw men, then you will give yourself easy victories. You might even earn EN World XP from those victories, but they won't help you become a better person.

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is more than one axis of oppression, and they interact but are not all the same thing? and some stories set a better example on one axis than on another axis? I find that idea useful. (shrug) Do what works for you!

Too be fair, that is what racists do.

Nailed it. Tip of the hat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Riley37

First Post
"Special prize to any of you guys who manage to "score" with one of the chicks in the game." If you wanted something even more alarming than the first example.

Asked and answered! Also, all too plausible, as behavior at a con. Yeah, in that case, go with Game A, or better yet, find a third alternative.

Now I'm picturing some guy, who plays a paladin, and who always heals Daphne's character first, with Lay On Hands; with an attempt at innuendo about where exactly he Lays On Hands. He expects this preferential treatment of her *character* to impress Daphne and earn her gratitude *as a player*. If it doesn't, or if it does, but not enough that she wants him as a scoring partner, and then he's extra angry because her rejection also means that his character doesn't get the special prize from the DM...

Yeesh, outraged entitled men sometimes act very badly. If you see him trying to take Daphne to the hotel's bar, and then see him chasing after her when she storms off into the lobby, please keep an eye on them.

This Daphe is a fictional example. I want cons to do all they can, to provide a safer venue for all the Daphne-analogues who are real-world participants at cons.
 

Hussar

Legend
Ok, couple of things in random order:

1. Drow as problematic. Ok, there's the obvious color thing. Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT. The reason they made them black is because of racism. So, basing your game race on those legends also ports in the racist attitudes that those legends were based on. But, besides that point, there's the issue that the main, and, AFAIK, only specific matriarchy in the game is a man hating, man enslaving group of women who worship a black widow spider. Umm, really? It's not like there are a bunch of different matriarchal races in the game and certainly none with as much traction as drow. The one that is front and center is about as blatantly sexist as you could possibly make it. That's what makes it problematic.

2. That all being said, it's not really productive to start pointing fingers and blame storming. It just doesn't help. It doesn't change anything. I think we can agree that D&D, up until pretty recently, could have done considerably more to be inclusive. Can we at least agree on that?

3. We should also not forget that things are not as bad as we might make them sound. WotC just recently bandied the number 15 million gamers in North America which is huge growth. But, bigger than that, is the number of female gamers - 40%!!!

Think about what that means. The last numbers I saw, back at the tail end of 3e, or early 4e, pegged the number of gamers at about 7.5 million. Now, it depends on how you define gamers - that number was anyone who had played at least once. Now, the 15 million number isn't defined, so, we'll say it's someone who has played once, just for the sake of argument. The thing is, of that 7.5 million number, the number of female gamers was about 15%. So, of the second half of that fifteen million, there had to be a HELL of a lot of female gamers giving the game a try.

So, yeah, the game has become a LOT more inclusive over the past ten years or so, and, likely, mostly with 5e. Fantastic. Doesn't mean job done and we can sit back, but, it does help to recognize that we are progressing. Things ARE getting better and a lot better, from the looks of it.

Getting all caught up in how the game was doesn't really help the conversation. We have to talk about how the game and the community that plays the game, looks like NOW. We can't change the past. We have to look forward.

Can we please let the past stay in the background and focus on now?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Hmmmm.... I suggest taking another look at the cover. That's not, in fact, the most serious issue with it.

I'm not seeing it. Drow women have white hair and dark skin, so that's normal for them and has nothing to do with the real world. Other than drawing them scantily clad as was common for all women of all races in fantasy RPGs of the time, I don't see an issue there that has anything to do with the real world. The two ogres don't seem to have anything wrong with them. The illithid seems normal for its type.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't feel that having a cover with sexy women is inherently sexist. Nor do I feel this cover in particular is sexist. Tacky, maybe... but not sexist. It seems in line with what you'd see on the cover of Heavy Metal back in the day. There's nothing wrong with that.

No it's not, when appropriate. Heavy Metal was a racy magazine. D&D is not. Now, if it was a sultan with his harem, it wouldn't be sexist to draw the harem scantily clad. When drawing warrior women, though, chain mail bikini's are being drawn just because, the way they SHOULD be drawn is with full cover armor like the male warriors are drawn.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Oh jeez, I'm having trouble understanding that people can't see this.

It has nothing to do with sexism. I could have found about 5 million early D&D pictures (let alone fantasy illustrations) that vary from causal sexism to "OMG I can't believe they used to use those."

Look again. If you look at prior drow art (well, most of it ... there were a few problematic early ones) you saw them depicted with the jet-black/obsidian otherworldly elfin look - think of the famous Erol Otus illustration with the tentacle rod.

Here, we have a distinct illustration of the Drow borrowing themes and ... um .... coloration from Africa. Being able to see issues is often a first step, and, TBH, I am somewhat gobsmacked that this isn't apparent to some of the other people on this thread.

That's not an issue, though. Look at pretty much every instance where different artists give renditions over the years. Batman is drawn many different ways, as is Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Black Panther and more. Just because this artist didn't draw them jet black doesn't make it racist. It was just a different interpretation of dark skinned elves.
 

evileeyore

Mrrrph
No, I'm not. Didn't then, and don't plan to.
Actually you did. You chose to answer "Please tell me what inclusive, progressive authors were writing about fantasy at the time?" and chose Zelazny's Amber as one of your examples. A sexist work if ever there was one.

Granted I chose not call you on Norton or Anderson (another pair of sexist writers) as I figure one distinct call out was enough, but maybe I should have? (Also, admission, I'm not as familiar with Norton and Anderson, not being as fond of their works, so had to do some research to confirm my suspicion. Which I was too lazy to do earlier.)


That you opted to draw out the singular redeeming quality bestowed upon the (unreliable) hero of the (first five) Amber stories doesn't ignore the rest of the work. Anymore than Hussar choosing to focus only on the negative aspects of the authors and works on Gygax's list doesn't ignore the positives within those works or authors.

If it's good for you, why not the other side? Why can't we draw out only the positive aspects of the Gygaxian list, which he clearly drew upon when crafting D&D, since D&D is inherently not sexist or racist in it's rules (I'm choosing to ignore the negative art at the moment, just as you ignored Zelzazny his sexism...).

I pointed out one specific aspect, as an ethical principle which Zelazny established, and which Gygax, so far as I can tell, ignored, disregarded, and didn't bring into D&D: whether a Lord of Amber could recognize the worth of other humans *even partially*.
Stunning. That the idea that players of D&D can be any race and are not required to ignore the personhood of all the other races somehow went right past you didn't it?


Yes, yes, I know early and modern D&D is still 'color-coded' for one's stealing from/killing convenience. Can we leave the "Is an orc a person or just a thing to be killed and whom's pie to be liberated" debate in that thread? I've railed against the non-personhood of the 'evil' races long enough over the last 30 some odd years.

That said, this change saved at least one life, early in the first book, when he stopped Random from killing a guy for failing to show adequate deference, plus many lives in the mixed-race army when Corwin negotiated a surrender.
You're going to have to convince me that Shadow folk are anything beyond the extension of a Real Person'sTM desire before I agree he actually became anything other than 'slightly eccentric' and was actually saving lives.

Corwin was unusual, among his kind, in developing a sense of compassion.
Only in that he was the first. And we only have his word for that after all...

From the Watsonian perspective, Corwin is a very unreliable narrator, from the Doylist perspective Zelazny was a lazy author who failed to do his homework.

If you jump to broader conclusions...
I returned to the broader reach of the original question.

...such as my opinion on gender justice in Amber...
I actually didn't question your opinion on that at all, only that you considered Amber to be at all 'progressive' since, you know, it isn't at all. A feeling of compassion for lesser beings was established literarally and in society a very, very long time before Zelazny wrote Nine Princes in Amber, so Coriwn finding it within himself wasn't at all progress. It was/is the status quo.

...and attack those broader conclusions as straw men...
You didn't have 'broader conclusions', remember, you were narrowing your focus. Do try to stay on page yes. :p

But yes I attacked the broader conclusion that Gygax (and D&D by extension) are inherently problematic because no one here is actually pointing out how in the rules it is (yes, sexist art exists. That is a given and has changed, kinda, ?maybe? for the better and I'm not getting drawn into ye olde "Are Orcs People" debate, it's a fruitless never ending circle of determinism versus environmentalism).

..then you will give yourself easy victories.
Was it an easy victory? Have i already won? Don't give up, there's hope for you yet.

You might even earn EN World XP from those victories...
And no one will ever know. I turned that bothersome nonsense off a long time ago (immediately as soon as it was implemented actually).

but they won't help you become a better person.
That's what they call around these parts a "personal attack" (by inference you imply I'm a 'worse' person that needs to 'improve'). Be careful with those, thinner skinned folks will call the modstopo out on you for it.

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is more than one axis of oppression...
Yes, as an underprivileged member of the proletariat I feel the grinding weight of the bourgeoisie upon my neck everyday.

Nailed it. Tip of the hat.
Really? So you have an argument against the notion that racists are only concerned with skin color?




Asked and answered! Also, all too plausible, as behavior at a con.
"Plausible"? Really? I've never heard anything even close to that uttered at a con or other gaming event*.

Maybe I surround myself with, or simply have had the luck to be amongst, a better class of people. You know, like the common average con goers.


* Admittedly I have heard similar phrases uttered in biker bars and by highly educated professionals. Both groups should have known better, but it was the early 90's, so hopefully they've learned better ways now that it's [CURRENT YEAR].

Yeesh, outraged entitled men sometimes act very badly.
So do outraged, entitled women. Hold that, I'll go with "so do outraged entitled people".




Ok, couple of things in random order:

1. Drow as problematic. Ok, there's the obvious color thing. Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT. The reason they made them black is because of racism.
So... the white guys who'd yet to really encounter black people made the 'evil'* elves black because racism?

Really?


* Note, the actual original 'dark elves', the dökkálfar, weren't evil. They just lived underground and were dark skinned, not at all 'evil' (and might actually have been dwarves). So... where's the racism again?

Or do you mean the svartálfar, who almost certainly were 'dwarves'? And also weren't evil?

But, besides that point, there's the issue that the main, and, AFAIK, only specific matriarchy in the game is a man hating, man enslaving group of women who worship a black widow spider.
I'm not sure why that's an issue. They are obviously not human (and not meant to represent a human group) and are a sexually dimorphic species (female are smarter and stronger among the Drow*).

They could only get further from being human if they were Illithid.


(Now, I will accept the argument that they were meant as a 'bad pastiche of patriarchal fears' if you can actually convince there is such a thing as 'the patriarchy'. But then, why is exploring a bad pastiche of some (albeit non-existent) group's fears bad? isn't exploring ideas what fantasy is all about?)

...only specific matriarchy in the game...
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Rashemen

I know you hit us with the 'AFAIK', and Faerun is a bit off-shooty these days, and the Witches of Rashemen were very under utilized... but... you know... still existed.

Getting all caught up in how the game was doesn't really help the conversation. We have to talk about how the game and the community that plays the game, looks like NOW. We can't change the past. We have to look forward.

Can we please let the past stay in the background and focus on now?
I'm mildly shocked in that I agree (a bit) with this.

But can I still argue with people over how it really wasn't that horrible back then? Please?



When drawing warrior women, though, chain mail bikini's are being drawn just because, the way they SHOULD be drawn is with full cover armor like the male warriors are drawn.
Don't even get me started on the 'boob plate' nonsense. Just don't. It's a long rant.

I'm just ecstatic that GoT got Brienne of Tarth's armor right. So much happiness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
My understanding, and this is supported in early drow mythos, is that drow are not black in skin color in order to mimic Africans/Blacks/Negros/etc.

Drow are black because it is the most visible way to represent a divine curse. If elves are fair skinned (which they are/were), then what is the easiest, visible, boldest way to mark them as bad, different, or cursed? Change their color. If good elves are fair in color, then make bad elves dark in color.

Now, does this parallel racist views? Absolutely. Their is no doubt that western Europeans felt that their lighter color skin tone was proof they were good, and therefore those most different from them, with dark skin, must be bad or less.

But, it is also a very traditional (which does not mean valid or accepted in current society) and understood meme or tool to indicate what was desired; that this group of elves are bad. This is a stereotype. One of hundred or thousands that make up much of this game with play. Stereotypes are useful in order to communicate information ins very concise manner. Stereotypes are not actually accurate in the real world, and often not even in our fantasy ones. But, they are useful.

Stop worrying, and arguing about, if drow being black is due to early racism in the game. It really doesn't matter. What matters is how are we going to protect people from harassment in our community? How do we (as a society) educate our members on simple things like "no", and how to deal with rejection in a healthy manner so that people don't feel bullied or victimized because they are told no.

White as good and black as evil has other associations as well. Day(white) was safer, people could see dangers, plants grew, it was life. Night(evil) held hidden dangers, predators stalked people, it was filled with evil spirits, people were injured by unseen dangers, etc. Some people associate these things with race, but race doesn't have to have anything to do with white=good and black=evil. It's nothing more than an assumption to think that Gygax was being racist by the creation of drow as evil and good elves being pale.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ok, couple of things in random order:

1. Drow as problematic. Ok, there's the obvious color thing. Yes, the legends made evil elves/fairies black but, THAT'S THE POINT. The reason they made them black is because of racism.

The reason for it was that the blackness of night held dangers and unknowns. It caused fear and was relegated to being the color of evil. Later on, because black was thought to be the color of evil, people with black skin were often treated poorly, but they were not the cause of the black = evil belief. It's very probable that Gygax was going with the night/day association, not racism.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top