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

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.

I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in good company having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale - and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the ACLU and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.
First, let’s be clear:
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

(The ACLU page you linked to.)

IOW, the ACLU does not advocate the suppression of public allegations of wrongdoing, however harmful they may be, but rather, they conform to the mindset of Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis:

~ “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

~ “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”

~”If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.

To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.

These are serious issues, which I take seriously.
Good.
Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.
Yes.
Accusations should be taken seriously.
They are.
I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.
For all the rhetoric of that word and it’s attendant contextual meaning, there are a lot of “witches” currently being exposed, caught and brought to justice. Even wealthy and powerful ones.

So I respectfully disagree with both the use of the term AND the conclusion that society’s pendulum has reached the opposite extreme.

Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a fine legal standard, but in our private lives, we don’t have the luxury of that much certainty. Nobody- except the well-heeled- on getting a weird feeling about a babysitter candidate is going to pay for and wait for a through background investigation before entrusting their kids to that person. They’re going to act on their suspicions.

IOW, its pointless to try to set that as your social standard for information like this: verification takes too much time and money to be meaningfully applied in everyday life. We simply don’t have the tools and money to make it otherwise.
People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.

I agree, but really, that “ruination” occurs because too many people don’t pay attention to the facts after a headline or two. When the acquitted and exonerated often have to move away to regain any semblance of normalcy, that isn’t the fault of their accusers, but the people who remain willfully ignorant of the facts.

Don’t blame the accuser, blame people for their laziness.
These things are business for the courts.

For reasons stated multiple times above, no. Not exclusively, at least. To refresh on 2 of them:

1. Courts have rules of evidentiary admissibility, which can be difficult hurdles to clear. Did you watch the video I posted in which Mexican reporter strike the man behind her on live TV? She claims he groped her; if that’s the case, it’s very difficult to see. AND THAT’S IN FRONT OF A LIVE CAMERA. Odds are good, no prosecutor would bring a case for sexual harassment based on that footage alone.

2. Because of the difficulties of gathering quality evidence, and the complicated psychology of sex-related crimes, there may also be ZERO recourse in the courts due to the elapsing of the statute of limitations.

Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.

Antiharassment policies serve a definite role. They make it difficult for offenders and enforcers of the law to claim ignorance of the law. They likewise raise victims’ awareness of remedies and the avenues down they can pursue to address their concerns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

GRIMJIM

First Post
Welcome back. Probably should have checked the rules before trotting out derogatory terms like “social justice warrior” and “virtue signalling”. Don’t post in the thread again, please.

I don't consider these to be derogatory terms, especially when deliberately put into 'scare quotes'. They have descriptive utility - and I even qualified the 'virtue signalling'. If you're speech policing and operating a harshly censorious atmosphere there's clearly no point or capacity to even have a discussion and I'll leave you to it - in this thread at least. A cautionary note that echo chambers breed extremism though.
 

Jeanneliza

First Post
That's a lovely abstract intellectual discussion.

Still want the pics though.

Also, at these events, would I be allowed to bring my own beverages, to be on the safe side?

I had all ready suggested someone creating a full electrified body suit, if their is consent the suit is deactivated, anyone else would take a few hundred volts. Extreme possibly, but effective, and no more extreme that expecting me to be prepared to video every comment AFTER it is made. Know any good electrical engineers?
 

Afrodyte

Explorer
I had all ready suggested someone creating a full electrified body suit, if their is consent the suit is deactivated, anyone else would take a few hundred volts. Extreme possibly, but effective, and no more extreme that expecting me to be prepared to video every comment AFTER it is made. Know any good electrical engineers?

Unfortunately, no. And of the ones I could find, I doubt many of them are also libel and slander attorneys since apparently that's also a standard I must adhere to when considering how to appropriately gauge risk in a situation where I'm surrounded by strange men who may or may not have a history of harassing women.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I don't consider these to be derogatory terms, especially when deliberately put into 'scare quotes'. They have descriptive utility - and I even qualified the 'virtue signalling'. If you're speech policing and operating a harshly censorious atmosphere there's clearly no point or capacity to even have a discussion and I'll leave you to it - in this thread at least. A cautionary note that echo chambers breed extremism though.

The rules about those terms may be (relatively) new, but the ones about arguing with moderators and posting in threads you’ve been asked not to are 20 years old. I know you’re aware of them.
 

Catulle

Hero
Well I can't very well leave that hanging without a response since it's an accusation.

I have never harassed anyone, or directed anyone to harass anyone and I'll mind you to back that up. I have certainly had disagreements and strong ones with people, reframing disagreement as 'harassment' has sadly become a common tactic, and was back in the day too. Sad to have seen it spread. Obnoxious behaviour, cheating, cliqueishness and so on sometimes elicits a negative response.

What you suggest here sounds rife with clique favouritism, bias, social ostracism and 'mean girls'. This seems like a source of abuse, rather than something to prevent it. Part of the problem, not any sort of solution.

I can't in all fairness not respond while also appreciating that we're been told to drop it here - I'd be glad to talk it out with you elsewhere and will chuck you a message over Facebook if you still use it?
 

RedJenOSU

First Post
To any male reading this thread:

Before you say that you've never harassed someone in your life, please consider these questions and note that this is not an exhaustive list:
  1. Have you ever told a rape joke?
  2. Have you ever repeated a rape joke?
  3. Have you ever catcalled anyone?
  4. Have you ever told a joke that implied the woman should have been "in the kitchen"?
  5. Have you ever told someone to suck your junk?
  6. Have you ever called someone "gay", "a fag", or "a homo"?
  7. Have you ever told a dirty joke and have someone not laugh?
  8. Have you ever called a woman a "girl" in a professional setting?
  9. Have you ever grabbed your junk in the general direction of a stranger?
  10. Have you ever deliberately taken up more than your allocated space on a bus or airplane (manspreading)?
  11. Have you ever teabagged someone (in person, in a video game, or any other media)?
  12. Have you ever interrupted a female to better explain what they are explaining without being asked?
  13. Have you ever found yourself talking to someone's cleavage or been told "my eye's are up here"?
If you are being honest and your answer is yes to any of those questions, then I would caution you against claiming to never have harassed anyone.

Have you ever been accused of mansplaining? Have you ever jokingly told someone to "hush, the men are talking"?

I'm not calling anyone a bad guy, what I'm trying to do is let you know that some of the things that seem natural and everyday to many men aren't all that innocent to someone else. I'm asking you to be better than you've been before and keep trying to be better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Catulle

Hero
*all that... stuff. I don't want to say good, so valuable?*

That's rather the point you were making earlier on about systemic issues but made extremely clear (I have done more than half of these things, and that's on me)

Regards,

Barry
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
In the interests of full disclosure, I can confess to:

1, 5, and 6, only in all-male gatherings of friends.

12, only among friends & family- especially my Mom, with whom I have 50 years of history of mutual interruptions.

Even with those caveats, I don’t claim I’ve never harassed. Memory can be selective, and I’m pretty sure at least one thing I’ve done (not on that list) would qualify. That was 29 years ago, and never repeated.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I'm sure you would believe me, but the entire direction of this thread indicates that anyone who harassed me would have a far more vigorous defense from the members of this community.

I recognize almost none of the avatar names of the misogynists who crawled out from under rocks in this thread. Essentially all of the names I do recognize...some of whom I tend to disagree with bitterly on anything related to gaming itself...are people who support and are inclined to believe the women.*

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion about Enworld. Make sure to check "join date" and "posts" before ascribing anything to "the community".

*An interesting corollary to that is that I have found myself thinking, "I gotta cut so-and-so some more slack. We may disagree about Warlords and metagaming, but he's an ok guy after all..."

Some things are more important than D&D, I guess.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top