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
I can't find it on this page, but it's still in my list of replies to me, so:

Charrua13 said:
You're right, because the philosophical discussion about whether or not there needs to be some standard of evidence in order to believe the stories of women who's agency is being disrespected is SO much better than having a legal discussion about it. Because without evidence to the contrary, women actually aren't being disrespected or harassed...it's all in their heads.

If you build your argument out of straw, you hurt everyone on your side when the wolves come in and blow it away. Of course there needs to be a standard of evidence to believe anything. Believing any allegations of sexual assault is a standard. One of the problems with it is that it's a standard that, having zero flexibility, tends to dissolve under any sort of pressure; people who believe in absolutes often seem to swing around the extremes, instead of approaching the complex truth. Also, good job giving fuel to any one who is terrified that one accusation, no matter how absurd, can destroy everything, by attacking anyone who wants any sort of thought about the matter. I think the number going around here is 5% of accusations are false, which means an accusation is pretty strong evidence, but once in a nat 20 there will be alarm bells going off and perhaps some rational thought is needed. And it's pretty hard to talk about when those alarm bells are simple bias or even refusal to accept the obvious and when they're indicative of a real problem in the accusation if someone is going off on everyone who isn't a 100% extremist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
E So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened.

... except the accused admired to wrong doing.

Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored.

He's posted here a number of times. He edited some of his posts because he realized they weren't helping.

Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all.
. But harassment and sexual violence can make people lose their job! Your boss is molesting you, no one will believe you, you quit and lose your job. There is a cost to the victims!

That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial - both instances in Canada.
The Ghomeshi trial was a giant mess... but Ghomeshi was a creep. He's admitted wrongdoing too.

As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'.
I would hope that our standards of behavior and ethics go above and beyond "is it legal?"....
[/QUOTE]
 

S'mon

Legend
To any male reading this thread:
[*]Have you ever found yourself talking to someone's cleavage...
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.

You seriously think being distracted by someone's cleavage is an act of harassment (but only if a male is distracted)?

Several of your standards were pretty appalling, but I think that is the worst.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I'd like to make it clear that "not criminal" is not the standard of behaviour we expect in our community. If you're committing crimes, you're way beyond the standard of behaviour we expect of you.
 

ok, I do not post much on here, but this article,,, lol where do I begin. Ok I have been in law for over 21 years, and anyone else who has probably cringed like me when they read this. There are three sides to every story, his side, her side and the truth. If he did what he is accused of, it is not appropriate, but to post a online article with the accusations with very little evidence knowing it could wreck someones career was pretty amateurish. If a person wants to be anonymous, guess what YOU can't use that information, a person has a right to face their accuser and if it can't be corroborated do not use it. Like I said if he did what they said, it is not cool, but it is not illegal and not worthy of internet bashing to destroy a career, when very little of it is substantiated. It boils down to a he said she said, like I said not cool if it is true. If you are a "journalist" I guess you skipped the part about liability and defamation of character. I hope you got a lawyer, because that train might a be a coming. I will say it again, I don't like the creepy guys at cons, and yes they are there and have no idea how to act in a social environment. They take it wayyy to far and need to be tossed, but from what I read, I was like hmmmm comments yes, harassment, not so sure. Not worthy of a article like that with all you had was he said she said. I will leave it at that, and I am a little disappointed that a article of that low quality was even posted. It started out as a good read and jumped off the cliff into a bash on one man. It had very little substance to back anything up, only having "stuff you had seen" or anonymous complaints. Like I said, it had a important point but devolved into something I would have seen in the Enquirer, and for you to even suggest you are impartial is a complete Lie. Anyone who reads that article can see there is some venom towards Fannon by Chris, that is obvious in the article and the reply to Fannon that no further contact was necessary. Next time check your sources and make sure there is no other agenda, if what I read on the other posts is true about the witnesses, well sorry but you got some egg on your face. Next time do an article with stories so people can learn, look out for stuff, take action, not a personal witch hunt, you just lost all credibility.
Very well said. I hope your comments are read by the staff here and cause a quality increase in what gets posted to the main page.
 


Particle_Man

Explorer
Also, false accusations are fairly easy to detect when it comes to sexual harassment and rape. The motives of false accusers fall into categories like “teenager in conservative family gets pregnant but fears admitting consensual sex to her parents”. Often, just as with harassers, there are detectable patterns of behaviour wrt people making false accusations. So if there was a Magic con artist thing going on, there would already be an established historical record of lying.

But when you get “he said/she said” cases where the accused harasser claims to be misunderstood, and says things were consensual or he thought they were anyway? That doesn’t fit the established and understood patterns of false accusations. Sexual harassment or assault is what happened there, almost certainly.

This might prove useful as to knowing the profiles of false accusers. Most people don’t fit these profiles and they are not hard to identify.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/amp/
 

Particle_Man

Explorer
Very well said. I hope your comments are read by the staff here and cause a quality increase in what gets posted to the main page.

I kinda miss Chris Clinch too, what with his hilarious misunderstanding of the difference between a court of law and journalism, despite those alleged 21 years of legal experience. But aside from the comedy value there is no truth to what Chris Clinch wrote. It has been well-established by better legal minds that there is no libel in the OP article and SPF doesn’t want to even hear people use that club to try to attack the OP (SPF was begging them to stop) so even an attempted libel case would not be brought forward.
 

I kinda miss Chris Clinch too, what with his hilarious misunderstanding of the difference between a court of law and journalism, despite those alleged 21 years of legal experience. But aside from the comedy value there is no truth to what Chris Clinch wrote. It has been well-established by better legal minds that there is no libel in the OP article and SPF doesn’t want to even hear people use that club to try to attack the OP (SPF was begging them to stop) so even an attempted libel case would not be brought forward.
I am more tired of the court of public opinion character assassination posts here at EN World.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
You seriously think being distracted by someone's cleavage is an act of harassment (but only if a male is distracted)?

Several of your standards were pretty appalling, but I think that is the worst.

If you're doing it enough to make the environment hostile - I can't see why ogling breasts wouldn't constitute sexual harassment. Dumbasses gotta learn to control themselves and their distractability.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top