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

Jeanneliza

First Post
In order?

1. Hit the wrong button; meant to hit XP.
2. Didn't mean to hit anything at all, it was an accident.
3. Has a weird sense of humor that I don't see?
4. Dunno ... being a jerk. In which case, his jerkiness is your reward (laughs count for XP).


EDIT- the lesson, IMO, is that either it's an accident or misunderstanding, in which case it's not worth stressing about, or it's something else, in which case enjoy the bonus. Either way, you had a good response.

K, I was just wondering, but until I know if it was his intent to humiliate me I'll just back out of the conversation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


DM Magic

Adventurer
I am sorry you had to experience that. No one should be demeaned or humiliated ever. No one should ever required to feel discomfort in their place or work or places of leisure.

But I have to ask, how many times has this happened to you in your life? You cited an instance back in 1983. ONE instance. Were you ever fired from a job for refusing an advance from a boss? if so that sucks, and it is damned hard to prove, especially in at will employment states.
Have you ever gone to the appropriate authorities with a complaint? How did they treat you when you did?
What other places have you been that you would like to see addressed here where this is soooo common that every man you speak to has a similar or worse story?

See, while I understand men have been and can be harassed, men can be and have been assaulted, here we need to address the scale. You cited an instance, I can't cite here every instance I have experienced something worse because ( I did the math this morning) I have lived 3237 weeks. I could list 3237 personal experiences of being harassed or assaulted or worse.

You seem to be under the mis-perception that because the issue of women being harassed here and we aren't being balanced about recognizing men too can suffer, have suffered, and probably will suffer (see Buddhism) that we don't believe they DO suffer. You would be wrong.

But again we come back to scale. And let me put this here for you. In a society where trying to address the daily harassment of women and other marginalized groups, to open societies eyes to what they have failed to recognize and address, gets shouted down, who exactly do you think are going to address the lesser scale harassment of the gender that wields most of the power to make corrections? Or more bluntly, in a society who doesn't care about the suffering of those who can't defend themselves, who do you think should care more about the suffering of those who would be perceived as more ABLE to protect themselves? See as long as society isn't addressing the MASSIVE issue of harassment, assault and murder of the weak, do you think they are going to address the same issues among the strong more quickly?
Reality is, once changes are made you will be safer as well. But as long as you don't address the pandemic, the epidemic will go untreated.

THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
 

So we're still talking about eliminating harassment in the context of the RPG hobby space right?

Agreed. There's been some good discussion, but that signal has been buried in a lot of noise and distractions on however many pages this thread has been (I'm not sure the exact number because quite a few from my block list showed up especially early on as they usually do).

So, we're gamers and gamers like rules. So how about these ground rules to avoid distractions as much as possible. Prepare as I cast Wall of Text!


1) The current status quo is that there is a lot of sexual harassment at conventions in the gaming community. (Online harassment is another massive problem, but let's focus on conventions and maybe smaller gatherings like store events first. Online harassment may be more difficult to address and some of us might learn a few things working through conventions first.)

2) It is not 100% men harassing women, but that makes up such a vast majority of it that this gendered aspect is fundamental to the problem and cannot be ignored. It must be considered in diagnosing and fixing the problem. However, the best fix(es) should help reduce all harassment: against women, men, young, old, LGBTQ, all religions, non-religious, etc.

3) We want to reduce harassment as close to zero as humanly possible so that all attendees feel safe at conventions and events.

4) We want to have a conversation to figure out and educate us on how to achieve #3. If you disagree with #1-3, then you are not part of this conversation and should be ignored. You are having a different conversation.

5) Distractions from this conversation support the status quo of #1 and should be ignored.

Not as fundamental, but I think still important:

6) Actual examples of harassment are more important than hypotheticals. Hypotheticals aren't necessarily a Distraction, but they can come close. At the very least, actual examples (and there are SO many out there) weigh far more importantly than hypotheticals.

7) However, specific examples should be used to further our goal of #3. Nitpicking and debating details of specific cases that do not inform the larger goal of #3 are Distractions. This conversation is not about deciding whether any particular instance was harassment or not. This conversation is about how to help attendees feel safe and be free from harassment.

8) Courts have nothing to do with this and are a Distraction. Something does not have to be illegal to be against a convention policy (harassment or otherwise). Conventions can ban or otherwise punish attendees for a wide variety of behaviors that do not rise to the level of a crime. Harassment is no different.

9) Worries about false accusations beyond the same due diligence the convention would put into investigating reports of theft, physical assault, etc. are a Distraction. Of course, a basic level of due diligence from convention staff is necessary, but convention staff are also not expected to have a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie protagonist level of detective skills for other policy violations, and the same is true for harassment. A vendor reporting a theft is presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise, and an attendee reporting harassment is similarly presumed genuine and honest until there is evidence otherwise.


How does that sound? Do people agree with those and want to have this conversation? (I'm especially interested to hear from the women in this thread if they think this would help. I could be wrong.) There may be more that we agree to, but at the very least I'm comfortable saying debating these is a different conversation and one that I (and I get the feeling many others) are no longer interested in having.

So that being said - How can we do better?

Thankfully, others have addressed this before! As I posted earlier but it lead to a Distraction, author Jim Hines even compiled a "SF/F Convention Harassment Policy Starter Kit" that also relies heavily on the Geek Feminism Wiki sample harassment policies. If someone has better examples/tutorials, please speak up and share them! These are just the ones I know about that work as solid introductions. They aren't written in stone. It's just counterproductive to start with nothing when others have done a lot of work already.

How about we do one of those "Let's Read X" discussions and make sure we understand each point. Maybe even take something like, say Gen Con's policies, as a case study to see how well they handle these issues. Let's stop talking abstract points and nitpicking distractions. In my experience, going through a concrete example can help immensely. So if you want to be part of the conversation some of us want to have, go read some of those links and let's talk details. If you want to continue with a different conversation, have fun. But at this point this is the only conversation that I am interested in having and see as being constructive.

Edit to add: If it would make more sense to jettison all these pages of Distraction and instead start a new thread, I'm fine with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Are we?

Because that would require a conversation with open minds and, you know, "talking." Which seems in short supply with some of the people that joined this conversation late.

And the award for most ironic statement in this thread in the last 24 hours goes too...

And part of that change is communication. I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of the work starts with a level of civil discourse; of being able to hear what other people are saying, and trying to respond. No, you can't persuade the "1% Bikers" of the world on a forum like this; but others? Maybe you can persuade them. Not immediately, but over time. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the hobby won't change immediately.*

This is not an issue that requires two-way communication. People should not have to be spoken to nicely in order to get on board with an idea like "sexual harassment is bad, maybe we should do something about that"; either they are already on board, or they aren't, and if they aren't they are a part of the problem. They do not deserve a cookie and juice box just because they want to stubbornly hold on to their privilege to not have to think about it too hard, and need to have their hands held just to get to a place of basic :):):):)ing human decency.

What you and @Dannyalcatraz and others in this thread are doing is tone policing, plain and simple, and as is always the case when somebody who doesn't have to deal with this kind of garbage on a daily basis tries to insist on the "appropriate" way to have a conversation about it with people who do have to deal with it on a daily basis, it is inevitably BS nonsense. @Afrodyte is hardly the first person on this thread who has used any kind of sarcasm or pulled out a contentious example in order to make a point. She is the first person who has explicitly identified as female to do so, however. And the first person to have at least three separate dudes get on her case and try to explain to her why it's not the "proper" way to do things.

I wonder if that's a coincidence?

If, at the next convention, a large group of people decide to go around harassing and assaulting everyone who doesn't like Gnome Paladins, and everybody else just turns a blind eye to it, we'll let you be the expert on how to go about addressing this problem. Until then, you are trying to make arguments from a position of authority you do not have.

Or better yet, why don't you do the work handing out the cookies and juice boxes and holding people's hands across the finish line towards basic human decency, since that seems to within your wheelhouse, and let the folks who have completely justifiable anger, hurt, frustration, and disgust, express those things in whatever manner they so choose, and see who responds better to which?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Or better yet, why don't you do the work handing out the cookies and juice boxes and holding people's hands across the finish line towards basic human decency, since that seems to within your wheelhouse, and let the folks who have completely justifiable anger, hurt, frustration, and disgust, express those things in whatever manner they so choose, and see who responds better to which?

Lest my glibness ruin the point of this in particular, I want [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13 and everyone else to know that this is an extremely serious point I'm trying to make.

If you do, seriously and legitimately, believe that there is a better way to solve the problem and get more people on the right side, why aren't you all spending your energy, you know, doing that better thing instead, rather than wasting that energy denigrating people for expressing pain and anger over the thing you are all, presumably, on the same side about? Who is that helping?

Whether it is true or not that you catch more flies with honey, if one method works well for some people and another method works better for others, why spend so much time and acrimony hashing which is the "better" or "proper" way to do it, thus de-legitimizing one or both methods, and just let both play out how they're going to play out? If you see people pulling away from the stick, reach out to them yourself with the carrot. That is how you help.

Bullying a harassment survivor not only doesn't help, it only serves to de-legitimize the cause, and embolden those who treat harassment as no big deal.

It is horrible rhetoric. It is terrible tactics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

This is not an issue that requires two-way communication.

[-]I think lowkey13 agrees that two-way communication isn't required since he blocked myself and others yesterday, and I'm guessing you might find his posts vanishing from your copy of this thread as well. Guess he's interested in a different conversation.

Anyone else?[/-]

So how specifically can we make conventions safer?

Maybe people need something to respond to, so how about this: Gen Con's harassment policy is inadequate because it (at least) fails to include:

- A definition of harassment.

- Information on how staff will respond to reports of harassment.

Strong statements are good (and their's is decently strong, so points for that) but not enough. If there is confusion about what Gen Con staff will consider harassment as well as having no transparency of what the process will entail ahead of time, people may be reluctant to report some instances of harassment. So Gen Con should be clearer about what constitutes harassment (but making sure it's not limited to only those things since people like finding loopholes) as well as explaining how harassment reports will be handled including who (with names) will investigate the report and confidentiality of the reporter.

Agree? Disagree?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
After my carefully worded response one of you guys want to tell me what I said that was so out of line that Jasper, the gentleman I was responding to found it funny? His only reaction was to laugh.
Is it because I was duped into believing a fake sob story?

I was assuming he was using it in the former meaning of "laugh at". He was mocking your response.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top