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

Thing is, Garanthos isn’t far off. It isn’t technically “the worst”, but recent studies indicate that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as once thought. Even victims get it wrong sometimes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that. But given the tenor of this thread, what's the point of describing victim testimony as the "worst" kind of evidence?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


A question for those (if there are any still left participating in this thread) who argue that you shouldn't go around reporting these stories because the only "evidence" is a story told by somebody who may be lying:

Do you have a similar reaction when you read news about adults suddenly, years later, reporting that they were molested by priests, coaches, or teachers? Do you think, "That should be proven in a court of law before anybody reports on that?" Or, "That guy might have a grudge and he's making up the story?" Or, "You can't go around destroying people's lives with mere allegations." Or, "That's not journalism?" (Or even, "Well WTF do you expect if you go on a class trip and your teacher invites you into his hotel room?")

Or do you believe the stories?

If it's different, why?
 
Last edited:

But given the tenor of this thread
Jumps in near the end and gets knives thrown at self... apparently.

In the science context it very much is the worst...

The placebo effect turns out (based on recent meta studies) is almost entirely false reporting when subjective results are removed there is no such thing as "placebo"

In science human witnessing ie the human bias is very very specifically removed by Double Blind studies we are poor evidence.

Being technical I guess. (the person responded to was being technical)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jumps in near the end and gets knives thrown... apparently

In the science context it very much is the worst...

The placebo effect turns out is almost entirely false reporting when subjective results are removed there is no such thing as "placebo"

In science human witnessing ie subjective is very very specifically removed by Double Blind studies we are poor evidence.

Yeah, sure, I'm not arguing with that.

I was correcting the use of the word 'proof' to be 'evidence', because I think it's important to be precise, to avoid giving the other side grounds for dismissing your arguments.

Given the topic and the strong opinions in this thread, I was interpreting your additional commentary to mean that it's especially bad evidence, and should be discounted. Yes, we should be skeptical of the ability of a test subject to judge whether a pill had an effect, or the ability of witness to pick an assailant (possibly of a different ethnicity, a task most people struggle with) out of a lineup, or the ability of a victim to remember (or even consistently remember) details.

But that's all very different from accusing a victim of simply making up a story.

So...again in the context of this thread...I interpreted your comment to mean "witness testimony is always suspect, so we should take the stories of these women with a big grain of salt". That's a leap from the fallibility of human memory to an accusation of lying.

If I got that wrong, if you were just geeking out on the word "evidence" because, well, that's what we do on forums like this, then I apologize.
 

If I got that wrong, if you were just geeking out on the word "evidence" because, well, that's what we do on forums like this, then I apologize.

Color me a geek...

Occurs to me, that I very likely respond to things which bother me by Geeking out more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I think the law system itself may be more than a tad overly oriented to protect the accused at the expense of the victim...

The above is raw opinion based on the stats of "all" crimes the "evidence" I have for it is pure correlation. -- see more geeking out.

It also occurs to me that the reason legal systems and other systems for evidence may be brought up is because we can at least track actual stats within those contexts. (even if those stats are themselves subject to lots of conjecture)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

[MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION] Attractiveness does not entitle you to sexually harass women, you Neanderthal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I think the law system itself may be more than a tad overly oriented to protect the accused at the expense of the victim...

The above is raw opinion based on the stats of "all" crimes the "evidence" I have for it is pure correlation. -- see more geeking out.

Not the thread for it, and totally not any kind of comment on the thread topic, but...

Yes, the system is adversarial towards the government. The sheer, horrifying power of the government has to be counterpointed. A 20-something Assistant US Attorney has the power to ruin lives with almost no effort and faces zero repercussions for being wrong and often no repercussions for illegal abuse of position. That kind of power is staggering. The ONLY defense against it is the thin line of rights and the underlying adversarial nature of the criminal justice system.

This goes hand in hand with the common sense admonition to not talk to the police without a lawyer. The simplest reduction of this principle is pointing out that the job of police isn't to find you innocent, but instead to find someone who is guilty. And they have a huge amount of leeway to go about that.

If you really ever want some nightmares, look into qualified immunity cases.

Again, the above is commentary on the criminal justice system and has NO intended corollaries to the subject at hand or how non-criminal harassment in the private sector should be or is handled. There's no where near the power differential outside of the criminal justice system that would require the levels of evidence or legal rights afforded to accused within it, and it's a mistake to draw parallels. In the criminal justice system the power of the state is massive compared to the power of the accused, and so those rules/rights are in place to offset that differential. This is not the case in harassment in private-venues (like cons) where, if anything, the power differential is in favor of the harasser. Some care to not swing the pendulum too far in the other direction is warranted, but, good grief, anti-harassment policies and getting kicked out of a con, while it can suck, aren't exactly horrible outcomes worthy of high level protections. I am generally concerned about the social-media shame parties, merely because it encourages some really vile behavior on both sides (threats and especially death threats are not warranted, ever).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top