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

TreChriron

Adventurer
Supporter
I believe we can talk about and change the sexual harassment culture in our industry and society at large.

It is also obvious to me that Mr. Helton is a fanatic who had made up his mind before ever reaching out to Mr. Fannon. I appreciate the need to illuminate these issues. But outside a trial, or investigation, or any other summary judgement, Mr. Helton has used ENWorld to assassinate the character of someone accused of misconduct. We are supposed to just trust Mr. Helton's sources? Where is the proof besides Mr. Helton's words?

The firing of Mr. Fannon was premature in my opinion.

You can believe victims, and hear them out, and still NOT leverage punitive damages against the accused. You could have just as easily created a discussion about behaviors, about teaching people (who obviously still don't get it) what is acceptable and not. Instead you called out names. You wanted to punish Mr. Fannon in your own public court, with you Mr. Helton sitting as judge and jury.

This was not a journalistic pursuit. It was a fevered emotional fanatical witch hunt perpetrated by a insincere provocateur attempting to establish himself as the "social justice warrior" supreme. Instead, Mr. Helton, you come off as a typical reality-TV sensationalist host.

Why in gods name Morrus is allowing this drivel to be posted on what used to be a good RPG news focused site is beyond me.

You two should be ashamed of yourselves.

I will be cancelling my support for this site, my EONS subscription and seriously questioning my use of WOIN as a publisher until the two of you apologize to Mr. Fannon, reinstate him as a columnist and get back to doing what ENWorld was designed to do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
At least in the good old USA, you have the right to confront your accusers, they don't get to hide behind a shield of anonymity and lob grenades with impunity, so I discount any remarks of theirs outright.

Well...not exactly. No right is absolute- rights are always in a balancing act with other rights & duties.

The right to confront your accusers exists, but it is limited by State & Federal Crime Victim Anonymity statutes, most of which include first and foremost victims of rape and sexual assault.

Those statutes typically forbid the nonconsentual release of the alleged voctim’s identity as well as their past and present sexual history. In addition, while they may be called on in court to testify and be cross-examined, most such statutes allow them to do so with an alias like “John/Jane Doe”. In extreme cases, other measures may be taken.
 

jdrakeh

Front Range Warlock
I love the chorus of ""Harassment hasn't occurred until proven before a court of law and these women are all dirty, dirty, liars until a judge says otherwise!" battle cry of sexual harassment champions here. This is why I don't post on ENWorld very much. If you think being a SJW is awful, being a die hard champion for sexual harassment and he-man woman-hater is magnitudes worse.
 

Obryn

Hero
Part of the reason we have a real court system is that a second hand conversation or a blog post isn't full proof of a crime.
This isn't the court system, and the level of proof required by a criminal court is simply not tenable as a standard for day to day living.
 

SPF wrote:
"...However, as I've made it clear above, I was also deeply concerned about how any of my past behaviors might have created exactly the wrong kinds of experiences for others in my community. I was also concerned about the fact that Helton had, thus far, made no attempt to discuss the situation with me..."

Let's look at this. Helton clearly had no obstacles to getting in touch with Fannon before submitting his column--he'd not only talked to the accusers, he'd a long-standing contact with Fannon dating at least back to his 2013 "Dorkland! Roundtable" video series (where he interviewed the man for more than an hour.) Why didn't he, and why did his editor have to do so?

Several folk: variations on, "you should've waited and thought about your response more."
This might be a good suggestion were this a legal case, but it's not. Would you have rather seen some sort of polished PR response? I'm sure that would've sounded much better--and pilloried for being too polished and less sincere.

SPF:
"Because I have acted inappropriately, many times, in my past. I've leered, male gaze extant, and paid overly-familiar compliments. I've flirted with folks who were just there to be a part of things, not expecting or wanting to be flirted with. I've used my position of privilege to intrude into the emotional and personal space of women I was attracted to. I've had things to say about their appearance, and simply assumed it was OK.

I've been a bad actor, creating unsafe and unwelcoming spaces. It doesn't matter that I was ignorant and well-meaning – not one bit. It was simply wrong, perpetuating a condition on our community that has lasted far, far too long. We need to have this conversation. We need to call out these behaviors. We need to change the game.

I am deeply, profoundly sorry for harm that I've caused, discomfort that I've created, bad behavior I've committed. I am very grateful we now have a condition in our community where such things are called out, and we are no longer tolerating this kind of thing."

Is this enough? Only the reader can determine that, but allow me to ask you: what WOULD be enough, if not this? For quite a while now, I've witnessed Sean writing about the #metoo movement from a position basically reflecting the above--a desire for change and improvement; an acknowledgement and apology for past behaviors, a general understanding of what has been wrong and a true desire to advocate and work for change.

What would YOU write, what would you say, were the situation reversed? What would be enough? Or is there no solution whatsoever that is acceptable; should all of those ever accused slink off into the darkness with nothing but a confession of guilt, never to return?

Is it not acceptable whatsoever to attempt to provide context? Is any provision of context immediately suspect? What suffices to prove Fannon's allegations that some of the accusations were made with malice aforethought? Those who'd claim the accusers have no reason to "come forward" are making undue presumptions, as anyone of any gender can attest regarding the messiness of the ending of some relationships. We don't know the motivations of the accusers even if the alleged behavior occurred. It may very well be that at the time--if it did occur as presented--it was viewed as, at least, par for the course if not accepted. If so, Fannon's behavior in recent times, unmotivated by a desire to "clear his name" or be presented as "a good guy" or "a martyr" should adequately serve to display a true change of heart and acceptance of his flaws. He's been a voice for change and moving forward with awareness and now he's apparently part of the problem.

I ask again: how would YOU reply in a way that would be "acceptable", and by what standard would it be enough?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doug McCrae

Legend
Look at it this way: I run games at my store. If I have a complaint, I investigate it and take quick action. I do not post on my store's FB page or website. I answer any questions from within the community.
If you possess information that will help individuals protect themselves from sexual harrassment, don't you have a moral duty not to withhold it?
 


timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
Why aren't these threads locked from the get-go?

Is there really anything to discuss? If Sean did something bad, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it, and history shows us these discussions provide little help. Several one-post accounts have registered just to post in this thread. From my experience on other forums, this is not a positive sign.

Sean himself has posted in this thread, for good or ill I do not know because quite frankly HOLY HANDGRENADES that is a big post and I didn't read it all.

If the Site Administration want to let this thread run on and on for another thousand pages, yeah okay I guess that's their call. But I don't see the gain in it.

I suspect it's the only way for Sean to publicly defend himself in a venue that's directly connected to the article. I imagine a follow-up article would also be good, but an issue of internet journalism is that a person can find one article that ranks well in searches years later and not a follow-up, and that's why some people who've been proven innocent of a thing still suffer under the shadow of guilt. Thanks a lot, Google!! ;-P

Only allowing moderators to post a reply from Sean or someone directly involved is probably the best way to go, IMHO, but then the chances of censoring those replies becomes even easier. I dunno.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Well, this thread has certainly gone in a predictable direction. Except Fannon's mammoth of an ill-advised response, the ending of which would have seemed like a much more sincere, full-throated endorsement of the movement against sexual harassment and a desire to learn and grow from the experience, had it not been immediately preceded by the personal attacks that it was. That was a bit unexpected.

Amusingly enough; Fannon's positioning himself as a supporter of #TimesUp makes me even more likely to disbelieve the narrative that multiple women, unconnected to each other, would make similar accusations up about him over the course of years as some attempt at "character assassination" by radical feminist ideologues; he clearly wants us to believe he's an ally, which begs the question for those pushing this narrative then: why? What actions, behaviors, or espoused ideologies would have predicated this massive conspiracy against him?

The way some people bend over backwards and twist their brain in knots in order to believe one man against multiple female accusers seriously boggles my mind.

And now a message for the fence-sitters. The "let's wait and see" folks. The "I don't know either him or the multiple accusers and witnesses against him, so I guess I'll just ignore all of the evidence on either side and go on with my day" individuals. The "what happened to innocent until proven guilty" crowd.

Hey, friends. I see you there. I know you mean well. But I've got some unfortunate news for you.

There is no fence.

There are two potential outcomes to accusations such as these. (1) Something happens as a result; i.e. Fannon faces consequences for his actions (based, ideally, on a number of different circumstances, but especially on the sincerity of his contrition and demonstration of better behavior); or (2) Nothing happens; the status quo remains; i.e, Fannon faces no consequences.

You do not get to not choose a side. You are either for the status quo, which tacitly means you believe the women making accusations are lying (or, at the very least, you believe that we should base our reaction as if we believed they were lying, which is a difference without a distinction if you ask me); or you believe they are telling the truth, at least in part if not in full, which means that there should be some consequences for Fannon's behavior.

Again, the conversation about what those consequences should be is fairly nuanced and depends on a lot of different factors, and there's a lot of middle ground there.

But in the "who do you believe" conservation, there really isn't. At best, this is a world where justice simply cannot be achieved, at least not without a burden of evidence that appears even strong than what is required for even a criminal conviction. That's not a world anybody should want to live in.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top