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

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 the other thing he does in his post is... admit to being a sexual harasser.

I have been "overly complimentary," using my position of privilege as a male guest, to unintentionally make female attendees uncomfortable. That's not been the case in the last few years, but it's something I recognize was part of my behavior some time ago, and I bring it up regularly when such conversations are engaged.

...

Some, however, will remember my behaviors from years ago and have little difficulty assuming some of this is true.
Because I have acted inappropriately, many times, in my past. I've leered, male gaze extant, and paid overly-familiar compliments. I've flirted with folks who were just there to be a part of things, not expecting or wanting to be flirted with. I've used my position of privilege to intrude into the emotional and personal space of women I was attracted to. I've had things to say about their appearance, and simply assumed it was OK.

I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.

I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing.

This is, quite clearly, an admission of past sexual harassment. He's merely denying some specific, recent, charges of it.

Not only is it an admission, Fannon himself says "We need to call out these behaviors".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

This is why there can't be civil conversations, soon as you disrupt the wagon, you are a labelled misogynist or worse just bc you don't agree with the narrative.

The problem is this comment:

Malicious accusations by women are unfortunately very common in the modern world.
Why do you say "malicious accusations by women" and not just "malicious accusations"? Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to make malicious accusations than men?

I wouldn't go so far as to say you're a misogynist or even that this is a misogynistic comment but I certainly think it's a sexist comment.
 

I notice there are still no actual statistics or studies being cited.

I simply no longer wish to communicate with you. Should I take my time to provide legit statistics, you and your ilk will attempt to twist or dismiss them just as shikaku did after I pointed out that his(her?) numbers where factually false.

You are set in your narrative, unwilling to see from any other perspective, and denigrate others that do not agree with you, proving no rational debate can be had.

This thread is no longer worth my attention, and for good measure, I'll just block you and be done with it.

Have a frabjous day.
 

The word of three individuals counts as "very little evidence"?
How many victims would there need to be? Five? Ten? Twenty?

What is the cut off point where it becomes acceptable to damaging one person's career?

# Hearsay is not evidence, like I said to me there is not enough there for me to justify a character assassination, unless I had more proof, that is me, you might not agree but it seems I am not the only one.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. This is not a trial, let alone a criminal one.

If Human Resources confronts you about about complaints regarding your behaviour, they're going to laugh at requests to confront your accuser. That's pretty much what this is. We're HR for the gaming community.
##And sorry but you are wrong, there is case law right here where I work where a complaint was made and a employee wanted to know is accuser and yes, he crushed them in court, so yes if you ask HR has to let you know who the complainant is. Look up Wind VS City of Gastonia.

Only criminal activities are worth destroying a career? You can be a creep and a jerk and a pervert but as long as you don't shoplift you're a welcome member of the community?
I don't think so.
I never said that, read what I said if it was true he should be showed the road, but I would want to see more than a few statements from years ago, with one witness who has issues already, to me that is not enough to pass judgement on anyone.

So the accusers are liars?
I never said that either,

It'd actually be he said, she & she & she said. Because there's three accusers (and were four).


What type of law did you practice again? :-S
I still do, before you post you might want to know more than what you read on google before you try a personal attack.

This makes it seem like we can only deal with creepy guys at cons at the time. That our only action is to eject them from that convention and can't do anything after the fact.

That's a short term fix. It doesn't prevent repeated behaviour. And it doesn't keep those individuals from finding work.


Anonymous to us. Because we don't need to know. Not anonymous to the journalist.
well that might be you, I dont believe everything I read on the internet, #1 I would like to know the person exists, and how do you know like one person has stated they did not have a personal vendetta against him.

Numerous journalists use anonymous sources. It's common practice.
But does not mean it is correct.

Curious how you believe that post without question but have instant doubts of the word of the accusers.
Why are his statements more believable? How is he more trustworthy?
Again I did not say that, I said I would like more proof before I chimed in, to me it is not enough to justify to me what is a character assassination. Like I said if it happened then see ya, we don't need people being like that, in any social venue, but if it is not true, then how would you feel if that was you?

I answered most of your statements right under the quotes,
 

If there is enough evidence to write and publish the article...
- is there also enough evidence to file a Court charge? (Or several charges, if appropriate)
- is there also enough evidence to post the offender's picture with the article, so we know WHO to avoid?

It's really annoying to find an article, "Look out for Mr. XYZ" but have no way to know which person that is unless he wears a big neon-colored nametag.
 

Hearsay is not evidence, like I said to me there is not enough there for me to justify a character assassination, unless I had more proof, that is me, you might not agree but it seems I am not the only one.
Wha...
What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.

Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.
 

Wha...
What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.

Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.

To get more specific, "Hearsay" is "and then I heard him say 'exact words'", which can or cannot be admissible in a court of law depending on any number of factors.

By contrast, "and then he did this" is not only not hearsay by any definition, it is also, as you point out, the very definition of evidential witness testimony.
 

Wha...
What hearsay? The article reports direct witness statements. Which ARE evidence. Literally. Witness statements are regularly used in courts.

Sigh. This isn’t worth my time. Especially parsing your poorly formatted response.
well sorry for the format I have a sick child and I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.
 

well sorry for the format I have a sick child and I am in a rush, anyway if you are repeating what someone is saying that is hearsay, not evidence. It is a statement, yes but still it is what it is. The journalist is repeating what someone else is saying sooooo there it is. In a court of law which no this is not in, there are things called an Affidavit for a reason, or an oath. But it all boils down to what I said earlier, to me there is not enough there to railroad someone, and second don't make a personal attack on a person who posts because you do not agree with it, unless you have more than internet experience.

Yes, heaven forbid a journalist engage in journalism :erm:
 

You seem to think ENWorld is some sort of counselling and reconciliation service. It's not. It's an rpg news outlet. Says so right in the logo.

No it isn't. It's an RPG themed left wing politics site.

1. "No Politics" applies only to centrist or conservative opinions and beliefs, left wing politics get articles and hundreds of comments without being held to that standard.
2. Articles routinely leave our key pieces of information that contradict the left wing position being presented. If you google the topics for many of the left wing articles here you tend to find a lot of missing information.
3. Any centrist or conservative terms for left wing activists result in immediate action from moderators, even when not directed at anyone on the site. All left wing terms for centrists or conservatives are permitted without a word, even when directed at another poster.

This is not an RPG news outlet, if it were, "No Politics" would mean "No Politics" and the articles would be about RPG topics, not left wing political activist topics.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, first week of every month starts with a left wing politics article. They're on a schedule.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top