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

prosfilaes

Adventurer
See, that´s the problem: The "innocent until proven" gets reversed, the babysitter has to prove (to you) that the accusations against her/him are wrong.

So you're saying that employers must hire someone unless there's proof that they're going to be a bad fit? Microsoft doesn't have the right to ask you for evidence that you're a good programmer, they must assume it unless they can prove otherwise?

Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.

- Do they create a ban list of everyone that has ever been even accused of harassing someone? Who decides? ENworld? Kataku?

Why should they let serial harassers come to the con? The basic question is fair, but the implication is not; a convention has a responsibility to exclude people known to cause problems. Part of the problem with sexual harassment as a con problem is that it tends to be somewhat discrete; I suspect you start a fist fight in the middle of Gen Con one year, and you'll find yourself excluded from more cons than Gen Con. If something can be covered up, the cons often want to cover it up.

- Are we applying the same standards for VIPs as well as the common con-goer? Could a Gary Gygax get away with stuff while Joe Obnoxious McFeely gets thrown out and ostracized?

Of course we're applying the same standards for VIPs. If any thing, the standards should be higher, since they're representing the community and if nobody stops it, they'll show up at con after con (in the way someone who doesn't work in the industry can't afford to) and cause problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
Which is part of what I’m talking about. To be used in court, testimony has to be evaluated by a third party- usually a judge- to see if the jury will ever hear it. That third party must consider probative value, risk of prejudice, hearsay rules for admission or exclusion, privacy rules, privilege rules, pattern exceptions, rules against self-incrimination, and so much more.

If it is heard and subsequently disallowed, that person can then order that the testimony may not be considered in evaluating guilt or innocence. If it is used against the judge’s order, the sentence may be vacated and a mistrial declared.

There's not necessarily a jury, though; if the judge makes the final call, there is no third party involved, and he's in the same shoes as when he orders the jury to ignore testimony; you can file away and ignore, but not forget. Not "if it's used", but "if it can be shown to have been used", and good luck with that, with either a jury or judge trial.

A lot of that I would dismiss as arbitrary legal rules, that may bear some rational connection to reasonable evidence evaluation, but also bear a lot of weirdness and irrelevance to reality from being developed from years of arbitrary rule formation and precedence. There's also trial rules, like hearsay, that work well when you can subpoena witness, but not so well for the average person.

Which is why people who are insisting on trial-level verification and veracity tests- as well as an utterly ridiculous “trial first before reporting” standard- are essentially asking for the highly improbable, if not outright impossible.

Real life is not a trial; that doesn't mean we should have evidentiary standards, but doesn't mean we can't copy them from trials, and they're not going to as rigid and formal as trial ones. Yes, such things are asking for the highly improbable, even impossible.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.

- Do they create a ban list of everyone that has ever been even accused of harassing someone? Who decides? ENworld? Kataku?
- Is this ban retroactive? Can someone decide they were harassed at a convention 3 months ago and still get someone banned when they could have told show management??
- Can the convention be responsible if this happened in a room party in someone's hotel room and not the event?
- Are we applying the same standards for VIPs as well as the common con-goer? Could a Gary Gygax get away with stuff while Joe Obnoxious McFeely gets thrown out and ostracized?

Already if you are being obnoxious, they will ask you nicely to leave. If you go off about that or you are really causing drama, they kick you out and do not refund your money.

They have in BIG ALL CAPS already not to mess with the cosplay girls. Don't.

What else can they really, realistically do? They are a trade convention. Not baby sitters.

Governments, venues, cons and similar institutions and organizations can and DO maintain such lists, for all kinds of offenses. Certain soccer fans are on restricted travel and admissions lists. Sports and entertainment venues maintain lists of persons not to be admitted. Judge Roy More was on the radar of mall security in his local environs for behavior that creeped out young women. There’s the infamous “No Fly” lists.

Most of those lists are assembled without benefit of trial, just accumulating available data. Actual arrests or trial results are a bonus, but not necessary prerequisites.

And sadly, YES, Big Kahunas get away with things normal Joes and Janes simply can’t. Of course, society is full of privilege disparities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Advilaar

Explorer
Governments, venues, cons and similar institutions and organizations can and DO maintain such lists, for all kinds of offenses. Certain soccer fans are on restricted travel and admissions lists. Sports and entertainment venues maintain lists of persons not to be admitted. Judge Roy More was on the radar of mall security in his local environs for behavior that creeped out young women. There’s the infamous “No Fly” lists.

Most of those lists are assembled without benefit of trial, just accumulating available data. Actual arrests or trial results are a bonus, but not necessary prerequisites.

And sadly, YES, Big Kahunas get away with things normal Joes and Janes simply can’t. Of course, society is full of privilege disparities.

Precisely.

At the end of the day you run into two sets of rules.

You or I get drunk and obnoxious, we get told to leave. If we do not go quietly, we get banned at least until the next convention. If we go WAY overboard, we get perma banned.

Fannon may have an okay following with his stuff, but he is really small fries compared to the WotC guys, Paizo guys, or the celebrities that show up. Him losing EnWorld hurts him worse than Enworld is hurt. But what if it is the director of WotC? Or one of the main dudes at Paizo? A loved fan celebrity like Peter Mayhew, Mark Hamill, or Patrick Stewart? Someone who can say I bring X people, I know your real name and company and refuse to give you tidbits that make your website/ event profitable any more and make life rough.

I guarantee that person would be treated different.
 

Thing is, they already have regulations you agree to when you go to the con. Not sure what else you want them to do/ they can do.

What can they do? An awful lot. Having clearly stated harassment policies is a good start, but certainly not the end of it.

Here is a good overview but in general:

1. Have a very clear harassment policy that not only says harassment will not be tolerated, but makes it clear how to report it, what the convention will do when it is reported, and what potential consequences will be.

(Side note: For one thing, they need to absolutely NOT be something like the S.T.O.P. policy that Green Ronin pushed recently that would require a victim to personally confront their harasser/abuser before the convention had to do anything. Among other issues it had, that is a fine example of a bad policy.)

2. Make the policy clearly visible as much as possible (on the website, in the program book, posted throughout the convention)

3. Train staff on how to handle harassment situations. This includes both "on the floor" staff on what to do when someone comes to them with a report, as well as for those in charge in how to properly research and respond to a report. (There are many experts in this and plenty of resources on the internet. If you are running a con, you need to be responsible enough to educate yourself on how to handle this stuff.)

4. Have clearly identified staff that victims can easily find and report to (who, as per #3, already know what to do and don't "need to go find someone" or something)

5. Take reports seriously. (Seems obvious, but this is where many, many conventions have failed in the past.)

6. Be decisive in response, even if the staff knows the person, even if they think he's actually a nice guy, even if they are a VIP. This can include removal from the convention and even police reports and/or permanent banning in very serious situations.

And that's just the basics, at that link above, as well as many, many resources out there, it goes into a lot of detail on what conventions can and should do. They aren't babysitters, but they are responsible for basic security at their gathering. If they cannot handle the responsibility of the above items, then they should not be running a convention.

But also to address a couple specific questions:

- Is this ban retroactive? Can someone decide they were harassed at a convention 3 months ago and still get someone banned when they could have told show management??
- Can the convention be responsible if this happened in a room party in someone's hotel room and not the event?

If someone reports after the fact, it should absolutely 100% be taken as seriously as a report during a convention. It's a bit easier since there's not a potential of an immediate threat, but it is still serious. Considering the sensitive nature of these issues and how overwhelmingly poorly conventions (and society) have traditionally handled these issues since pretty much forever, basically telling a victim "You should have told us before, now we won't take you seriously" is absurd and wrong.

Secondly, a convention may not be responsible for what happens in a room party or in someone's hotel room (in the sense of being able to blame them), but they are absolutely 100% responsible for how they respond afterwards.

(And to reiterate from above - VIPs need to be held to the same standard. Yes, some have failed to do that, but others are quite willing to. And even if some conventions haven't held VIPs to the same standard, they are wrong and need to change their policy or attendees need to refuse to go there anymore.)
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
There's not necessarily a jury, though; if the judge makes the final call, there is no third party involved...
The judge is ALWAYS a (presumptively neutral) third party- the first and second being the defendant and the prosecution/victim/complainant. If there is no jury, the judge then adds their usual role as trier of fact to his or her duties.

...and he's in the same shoes as when he orders the jury to ignore testimony; you can file away and ignore, but not forget. Not "if it's used", but "if it can be shown to have been used", and good luck with that, with either a jury or judge trial.

Verdicts get tossed every day for being decided by facts not in evidence, including things that were stricken.

A lot of that I would dismiss as arbitrary legal rules, that may bear some rational connection to reasonable evidence evaluation, but also bear a lot of weirdness and irrelevance to reality from being developed from years of arbitrary rule formation and precedence. There's also trial rules, like hearsay, that work well when you can subpoena witness, but not so well for the average person.

They’re really not as arbitrary as they seem to an outsider.

Let’s look at a definition of Hearsay:
Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.

“Bob told me Mary said she killed Steve.” Is hearsay.

Noe here’s a list of more than 20 exceptions in Federal courts (state courts may differ) to the rule that hearsay is to be excluded. Note that the last one is a vague catchall that goes to Rule 807.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_807

Do any of the exceptions apply? That’s situational, and a matter for a judge to decide. And if the first 20+ don’t apply, Rule 807 still might. And should we apply the Federal or the state standard? What if the reported incident is in another jurisdiction? Another country?

Without a judge, trying to use a hearsay standard in journalism or everyday discourse would be pointless.

Real life is not a trial; that doesn't mean we should have evidentiary standards, but doesn't mean we can't copy them from trials, and they're not going to as rigid and formal as trial ones. Yes, such things are asking for the highly improbable, even impossible.

Because we don’t have judges, copying those rules is problematic if not impossible. At best, we have the rules of ethics in professional journalism to help weed things out, coupled with our own personal ethoi.

(Which is a major reason why you shouldn’t be a passive consumer of news.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
In case you missed it, moderators have a whole bag of “Shh!”
[video=youtube;FRG-RBZBTZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRG-RBZBTZI[/video]
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
I guarantee that person would be treated different.

That's an entirely different discussion, though. Yes, if someone is rich enough or famous enough, they can sometimes literally get away with murder. That's not an argument about murder as much as how we treat the rich and famous. And that's part of the reason for discussion like this one, so that cons can actually point to reasons for refusing problematic individuals with enough celebrity.
 


Jeanneliza

First Post
I do want to thank the mods, and a good many others engaged in an effort at real discussion here. I also want to apologize for giving in to the temptation for engaging with, well some days the urge to play Whack a Troll is just overwhelming.

That said I have continued to follow, and earlier Jen and lowkey were working and finding common ground, the points they could agree on.
But I also see a lot of side railing into level of evidence, fairness to the accused, all valid concerns but I sense that real people really getting hurt is being lost in the details. If this isn't addressed, people who are afraid of these kind of things STOP going. I understand those in the business may often have professional obligations to be there, and that makes their choice even harder.
I understand there has ALWAYS been women in the gaming community and business. And their experiences from reports I read and conversations I have had pretty much mirror the larger population.
I saw the comment about it not being any bigger of a problem at gaming Cons than anywhere else. That is probably true. But other communities, the larger society are also being forced to confront some of these same issues, the gaming community is no EXCEPTION.
Some seem to be offended that RPG publishers want to broaden their audience beyond what they consider "traditional" and that these efforts are "pandering". Common business sense is if you want your business to grow you expand your customer base. You can choose to boycott companies that have made these decisions if it offends you that deeply, you can boycott Cons you feel are to restrictive with their policies(victims will boycott the ones that aren't restrictive enough to keep them reasonably safe), but actively fighting to keep systems in place that create victims while semantics are ironed out just kind of makes you a d*&@.
Oh and to the babysitter analogy? Sorry but my child/grandchild's safety trump's your right to a presumption of innocence, especially since I also bear the financial cost of that risk.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top