Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done

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

Just saying we can't allow witch hunts, we can't take women on simply that their word that it happened, we need some kind of proof, otherwise some women will get the idea that they can accuse anybody of sexual harassment, anybody they don't like, maybe a boyfriend that broke up with them for another girl, maybe they have their eyes on some rich guy, some celebrity, and they get together with their friends and decide to get a big payoff by accusing him of sexual harassment. Women do talk to one another after all. If somebody is rich or famous and well known to the public, the chances of a false accusation by women with dollar signs in their eyes go way up! We can't dismiss that possibility, that is why we need proof. If it is difficult for a woman to supply proof that they were sexually harassed, too bad. We can't lower the burden of proof on them just because they are women.

Again, actual crime statistics show a false reporting rate of under 10%. False allegations happen, yes, and some have been quite high-profile. But occasions of this are so rare that using them to justify suppressing news about possible crimes is dropping napalm bombs to hunt mosquitos.

I will also note that the false accusation rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Again, actual crime statistics show a false reporting rate of under 10%. False allegations happen, yes, and some have been quite high-profile. But occasions of this are so rare that using them to justify suppressing news about possible crimes is dropping napalm bombs to hunt mosquitos.

I will also note that the false report rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.

Of course not. Because for many people, they understand that murder (to use your example) is wrong, while, according to some people in this thread, harassing women is OK if you are socially awkward or need to get a date.
 

Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.

You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.

The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.

[This is almost the exact same comment you made last time you were threadbanned for defending harassment at conventions. This time it's not just a threadban. - Morrus]

Wrong on so many levels....
 

@shidaku -

I DO NOT agree with the premise that people can't or shouldn't accuse someone of sexual harassment. I personally believe however, that talking to leadership in the place of the harassment, or the police might be a better course of action than calling The National Enquirer. In the former, I'm likely going to consider you more honest than the latter. Also, if the accusers had brought this up with the convention staff involved, wouldn't it at least have served as a good example as to WHY con runners should have the policies clearly stated? It seems dumb that we have to remind people to act like decent human beings. However, once you do, and they do something terrible, you can boot them.

I question the motivation of the accusers and more importantly the "reporter" because we're reading about it on the new RPG Enquirer instead of from con runners or staff. Again, I believe that a story about "here's the recounting of sexual harassment at BlahBlahBlah con..." followed by an interview with the con runners about how they are going to address sexual harassment in the future would have been much better as a teaching tool. Then, with your clout, help the aggrieved parties to a solution. Whether that be charges, or investigation or just listening. Hell, regardless of guilt, if SPF had the opportunity to apologize directly to the aggrieved, would that not be more closure than this? Then, if all parties agree, pen up an article about what everyone learned in the process. People read it, empathize with the real pain of the harassment, and internalize it. No fire. No vitriol. No attacks. That's doing something. Not tabloid sensationalism. Not drama for clicks. Actual progress. Read SPF's recounting of emails from Chris Helton. That dude was ready to crucify him. He had no intention of gathering facts or doing something to address sexual harassment.

I'm not asking victims to be silent. I'm not making excuses for terrible people so they can do terrible things. I am specifically protesting THIS article and the manner in which THIS particular situation was handled.
 

Or they are simply lurkers of (/on?) this site who think: "Now is the point to offer my opinion!"
I´m someone who is visiting this site for a long long time and posted the first time last month...

PS: To speak in a general way I know the phenomenon "sock puppets" exist, but I find it rather silly and disrespectfull of ignoring posted arguments and instead only writing assumptions of "Sock Puppet!". :(

You are right. Users with fresh accounts and low post-counts aren't necessarily "sock-puppets" or even "board-crashers", they could simply be lurkers who have finally been motivated to post. I shouldn't have assumed.

But this thread is definitely filled to the brim with sock-puppets and board-crashers, and the vast majority of our new friends who have posted in this thread are defending the sexual harassment of women, regardless of motive or RL identity. And I'm tired. No excuse really, sorry, from now on I'll just stick to adding these fine folks to my ignore list and avoid making assumptions and calling them out.
 


Certainly, filing a report would be ideal. However, the psychology and real-world factors leading women (and men) to not report are complex and numerous. Sometimes, it is as simple as the running of the statute of limitations cutting off prosecution by the time the victim has summoned the courage to come forward.
 

@shidaku -

I DO NOT agree with the premise that people can't or shouldn't accuse someone of sexual harassment. I personally believe however, that talking to leadership in the place of the harassment, or the police might be a better course of action than calling The National Enquirer. In the former, I'm likely going to consider you more honest than the latter. Also, if the accusers had brought this up with the convention staff involved, wouldn't it at least have served as a good example as to WHY con runners should have the policies clearly stated? It seems dumb that we have to remind people to act like decent human beings. However, once you do, and they do something terrible, you can boot them.
This makes me question if you actually read the article, because the article explicitly states that one of the women did take it up with the Con and the Con even talked to Fannon about it and Fannon himself admits that he was indeed spoken to about it.

I question the motivation of the accusers and more importantly the "reporter" because we're reading about it on the new RPG Enquirer instead of from con runners or staff.
Have you considered that the reason it is here is because A: this is one of the biggest RPG news sites on the net, and B: the accusations span outside of a con (such as email and facebook communications) and C: the victims may not feel the con sufficiently handled things?

People go to the police every day with crimes. That does not mean the police sufficiently resolve those alleged crimes.

Again, I believe that a story about "here's the recounting of sexual harassment at BlahBlahBlah con..." followed by an interview with the con runners about how they are going to address sexual harassment in the future would have been much better as a teaching tool.
Chris makes no mention on if he reached out to these Cons or what their response was. For all either of us know, he did and was unable to reach them, he reached them and they declined to comment, or he did not. Any of those could be true. For you to assume that he did not, is entirely on you. That's YOUR assumption based on YOUR opinion that this article needed "something else". A "something else" that from the attitude of your prior posts, I would argue would never be enough.

Then, with your clout, help the aggrieved parties to a solution. Whether that be charges, or investigation or just listening.
By interviewing them, Chris did exactly that. And none of those things are really the place of a reporter. They report the news. They don't solve it.

Hell, regardless of guilt, if SPF had the opportunity to apologize directly to the aggrieved, would that not be more closure than this?
I'm willing to bet that the victims have no desire to hear from Fannon ever again. Apology or otherwise. And closure for who. Apologies hoenstly mean nothing, actions do. If Fannon changes his ways, THAT will be his apology. THAT will be the closure.

Then, if all parties agree, pen up an article about what everyone learned in the process. People read it, empathize with the real pain of the harassment, and internalize it. No fire. No vitriol. No attacks. That's doing something. Not tabloid sensationalism. Not drama for clicks. Actual progress. Read SPF's recounting of emails from Chris Helton. That dude was ready to crucify him. He had no intention of gathering facts or doing something to address sexual harassment.
I did read Fannon's post. He's all over the place. From patting his back to casting aspersions to remembering then not remembering then commenting in weirdly rules-lawyery fashion. And I saw no indication of crucifixion or vilification from Chris.

I'm not asking victims to be silent. I'm not making excuses for terrible people so they can do terrible things. I am specifically protesting THIS article and the manner in which THIS particular situation was handled.
NO, you have very clearly stated that this is a common trend in Chris Helton's work. You have stated on multiple occasions that the fault lies specifically with Chris. That he has done this before in an effort to garner views, money and clicks.
 

I will also note that the false accusation rate in this area is in line with that of other violent crimes, yet we do not see the same chorus of howls of yellow journalism and witch hunting when someone is accused of murder.

Well, in fairness, with murder there is generally a body, which is itself evidence of a kind.
 

Just some random observations

Things like this really aren't witch hunts, because witches (no offense to Prof. Murray) didn't actually exist. Whereas men harassing women do exist

The burden of proof isn't the same as that of a court, because no one is wanting to imprison him. The main goal is to prevent him from harassing women in the future. Does that mean not inviting him to cons? Losing his job? Or him just realizing he should knock it off? That is probably what should be argued.

The other day at work I and a co-worker caught the tail end of a meeting about sexual harassment. My co-worker, who is a very good looking guy, commented to me that many of the things described aren't sexual harassment if the guy is hot enough. While I am not saying that is true, he certainly believes it to be true. So he often indulges in shady behavior because he believes he can get away with it or it's welcome. I think this is the same sort of thinking that people in an industry can start believing once they get some success.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top