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

DM Magic

Adventurer
I have been following this thread since it started, and there are so many issues I could address here as a woman, as a grandmother who games, and just as a decent human being but that would take a book.
I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.
Second, they clearly gave Mr. Fannon an opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf, and he clearly did. And HIS statement is riddled with admissions of bad behavior in the past and at least one occasion where it was reported to Con organizers. This itself lends credibility to the claims and pretty much ends any potential for a libel suit.
Third, people have commented on here who know him personally, and they too make enough admissions to again, preclude any potential libel suit.
Fourth, this paranoid BS about jail. NO ONE is talking about sending Mr. Fannon to jail, nor could they. These are civil offense at the level reported. If he physically grabbed someone that crosses a line to simple assault, then it becomes potentially criminal, but no one has said any of these women want to take it to that level.
For a libel suit to prevail Mr. Fannon would have to prove these women are lying. His accusations about their motives are ALSO libelous, and his credibility with his own admitted pattern will be far more scrutinized in a lawsuit than the multiple accusers.
Now to the issue of free speech. There are four recognized exceptions under US law and one of them are private venues. ENWorld is a private venue under the law, i.e. not government owned. How they choose to limit or not limit speech here is a private business decision. You can boycott them if you disagree, this is a time honored form of free speech, but complaining about legal violations then demonstrating a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is just WRONG.
There is another line running through this thread I wish I had time to address, and that is a pervasive fear, or claimed fear of even talking to women because of the risk of being attacked with harassment allegations. Welcome to our world boys. I am over 60 and I don't remember a time when my gender was not routinely advised on what to say or not to say so not as to give a guy the wrong impression. There has never been a time we were not advised about where we could go safely and where the risks were higher due to the potential for assault. There was never a time when we were not encouraged to stay in groups for our own physical safety. You all know that joke about women always needing two to go the restroom? Too us it was never a joke, it was merely following the advice of protecting ourselves from harassment and assault by sticking together. Any of you guys here ever been on an elevator alone, it stops on a different floor, door opens, a woman standing there, indicates she isn't getting in, no reason or a casual'wrong way" and shrug? Because we are taught to NEVER get in an elevator alone with strange men. period. Those are just two examples of how my gender is inculcated from our first steps to protect ourselves.
Do we ignore those rules at time? Sure, and when we do and then are actually attacked and we do report it do you know the questions we have to answer? WHY were you there alone? DID YOU say anything or act in anyway to encourage the attack? Were there any witnesses because unless they leave DNA and the attacker denies it is he said/she said. The news is loaded with TRUE stories nearly daily of a woman testifying against an assailant being put on trial to prove that she in NO WAY, word, thought, or deed invited this on herself.
So now that guys may have to do the same or be treated the same we have all this outrage.
As for PC, as I said I am a grandmother, I grew up in different times, and it seems to me this resentment of PC(or in my days was simply called good manners) is pretty misplaced. But I hear ya guys, I do miss the days when an elbow to the solar plexus or a knee to the groin of some overly friendly didn't carry the risk of an assault and battery charge.

Quoting this for the people in the back.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

caljai

First Post
Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.

First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).

When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.

Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!

The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.


Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.
 

DM Magic

Adventurer
Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.

First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).

When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.

Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!

The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.

Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.

As was said before:

Jeanneliza said:
I do want to state one thing to all you legal experts, or those who think rules lawyering in a game qualifies you to act as either defense or prosecution here, libel laws. The entity is in the USA so it falls under US libel laws. Proving libel is a pretty high bar, and there are several legal protections publications take in advance.
First the article clearly states that ENWorld and Mr. Helton are in possession of physical evidence, texts, emails etc that support the claims. Should they be sued for slander the courtroom is the proper place to produce that.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.

It generally does if its true. While there are certain exceptions, it is generally impossible to libel or slander someone with the truth, no matter how painful that truth is to the person's reputation or character.

That stands in contrast with other countries, the UK being one that I'm familiar with, where the courts make it easier for someone to sue for defamation even when the statements made against them are provably true - easier than in the US at least.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Thomas Bowman

First Post
Actually, let's be clear about a few things here.

First, Libel is becoming easier to win in court nowadays. I can refer you to many cases (either won by judgment or settled, resulting in may cases of awards in excess of a million dollars, a simple Google search will display the cases in question).

When I talk about a crime being committed, I am referring to a possible sexual assault claim (is, where a woman claims she was groped by the man (she states he pushed his crotch into her).
I fully understand the complexity of the legal system and the differences between civil and criminal.

Just because a company is journalistic in nature, still doesn't give it the right to publish information that is defamatory towards a person who has not been convicted of a crime (and even in some cases actually convicted of a crime)!

The problem is that states differ from each other In regards to what and how they treat Libel. Some states are more punitive and others less so. Some states award punitive damages on top of other awards.


Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.

And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.

Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.

Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"

Wow. Just :):):):)ing wow, man. The level of misogyny in some posts in this thread has been really astonishing.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
Freedom of speech and press doesn't mean it gives you a right to harm a person's character.
Fannon himself has admitted to sexual harassment.

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.
 

And women who have been harmed by sexual assault won't be helped if you make it easier for them to send people to jail willy nilly. Women have got to use their smarts of they want someone to be arrested for sexual assault, it can't just be her word against his and her word always wins! Women who are truly victims of sexual harassment need to present proof, not just to get her female friends to agree that the man in question is a creep! So the standard then becomes, whoever loses a popularity contest with women goes to jail. That is the standard I don't want to get set, because it means all those popular guys get on those women falling over themselves, while the losers get sent to jail for sexual harassment based on some woman's word on it alone.

Women can also use this as a form of blackmail to keep a relationship going that otherwise would have ended a long time ago. Lets say a woman is having a relationship with a married man, and the married man is feeling guilty and he wants to end it with her so he can go back to his wife, but the mistress says, "Oh no you don't, you are coming right back here to bed with me every Friday, we will keep it discrete, but if you ever break up with me, then I will blab and break up your marriage! So you be a good boy and come to bed with me right now or their will be consequences!"

Urgh....do you really think that women are like that? That petty? That's dark...seriously. I can tell you, even as a "dorky" guy myself who got rejected more than once...I never once got called a harasser because I simply respected a "no". It hurts but it's not done out of malice. Sometimes, people click and sometimes they don't. It's harsh...but it's life. No need to allow fear or hatred to consume you.
[MENTION=6843244]Jeanneliza[/MENTION] - Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. I have to admit, I caught myself thinking about false accusations and men having to suddenly be extra careful and felt that tinge of resentment, too...until you pointed out that women have had to worry about these things for far, far longer.
It really put things in perspective for me and I mean that wholly without sarcasm.Thanks.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Huh. I think Libel ENW has now surpassed Fair Use ENW as my least favorite ENW. So much much ignorance, so widely spread, yet so adamantly professed.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top