Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
The specter of sexual harassment has once again risen up in tabletop gaming circles. Conventions are supposed to be places where gamers and geeks can be themselves and embrace their loves. Conventions need clear and well formulated harassment policies, and they need to enforce them. In this instance the allegations from multiple women have taken place at gaming conventions and gathering in different locations around the country. In one case, the harassment was took place over the course of years and spilled over into electronic formats.


The alleged harasser in these cases was Sean Patrick Fannon, President of Evil Beagle Games, Brand Manager for Savage Rifts at Pinnacle Entertainment Group, as well as being a game designer and developer with a long history in the tabletop role-playing industry.

There is a long and untenable policy of harassment at conventions that stretches back to science fiction and fantasy fandom in the 1960s. Atlanta's Dragon*Con has been a lightning rod in the discussions about safety at geeky conventions after one of the convention's founders was arrested and pled guilty to three charges of molestation. We have also covered reports of harassment at conventions such as Paizo Con, and inappropriate or harassing behavior by notable industry figures. It is clear that clear harassment policies and firm enforcement of them is needed in spaces where members of our community gather, in order that attendees feel safe to go about their hobby. Some companies, such as Pelgrane Press, now refuse to attend conventions where a clear harassment policy is not available.

Several women have approached me to tell me about encounters with Fannon. Some of them asked not to be named, or to use their reports for background verification only. We also reached out to Sean Patrick Fannon for his comments, and he was willing to address the allegations.

The women that I spoke with had encounters with Fannon that went back to 2013 and 2014 but also happened as recently as the summer of 2017. Each of the locations were in different parts of the country, but all of them occurred when Fannon was a guest of the event.

The worse of the two incidents related to me happened at a convention in the Eastern part of the United States. In going back over texts and messages stretching back years the woman said that it "is frustrating [now] to read these things" because of the cajoling and almost bullying approach that Fannon would use in the messages. She said that Fannon approached her at the con suite of the convention, and after speaking with her for a bit and playing a game with a group in the suite he showed her explicit photos on his cellphone of him engaged in sex acts with a woman.

Fannon's ongoing harassment of this woman would occur both electronically and in person, when they would both be at the same event, and over the course of years he would continue to suggest that she should engage in sexual acts, either with him alone, or with another woman.

Fannon denies the nature of the event, saying "I will assert with confidence that at no time would such a sharing have occurred without my understanding explicit consent on the part of all parties. It may be that, somehow, a miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred; the chaos of a party or social gathering may have created a circumstance of all parties not understanding the same thing within such a discourse. Regardless, I would not have opened such a file and shared it without believing, sincerely, it was a welcome part of the discussion (and in pursuit of further, mutually-expressed intimate interest)."

The second woman, at a different gaming-related event in another part of the country, told of how Fannon, over the course of a day at the event, asked her on four different occasions for hugs, or physical contact with her. Each time she clearly said no to him. The first time she qualified her answer with a "I don't even know you," which prompted Fannon after he saw her for a second time to say "Well, you know me now." She said that because of the multiple attempts in a short period of time that Fannon's behavior felt predatory to her. Afterwards he also attempted to connect with her via Facebook.

Afterwards, this second woman contacted the group that organized the event to share what happened and they reached out to Fannon with their concerns towards his behavior. According to sources within the organization at the time, Fannon - as with the first example - described it to the organizers as a misunderstanding on the woman's part. When asked, he later clarified to us that the misunderstanding was on his own side, saying "Honestly, I should have gotten over myself right at the start, simply owned that I misunderstood, and apologized. In the end, that's what happened, and I walked away from that with a pretty profound sense of how to go forward with my thinking about the personal space of those I don't know or know only in passing."

Both women faced ongoing pressure from Fannon, with one woman the experiences going on for a number of years after the initial convention meeting. In both cases he attempted to continue contact via electronic means with varying degrees of success. A number of screen shots from electronic conversations with Fannon were shared with me by both women.

Diane Bulkeley was willing to come forward and speak on the record of her incidents with Fannon. Fannon made seemingly innocent, and yet inappropriate comments about her body and what he wanted to do with her. She is part of a charity organization that had Fannon as a guest. What happened to her was witnessed by another woman with whom I spoke about that weekend. As Bulkeley heard some things, and her witness others, their experiences are interwoven to describe what happened. Bulkeley described this first encounter at the hotel's elevators: "We were on the floor where our rooms were to go downstairs to the convention floor. I was wearing a tank top and shirt over it that showed my cleavage. He was staring at my chest and said how much he loved my shirt and that I should wear it more often as it makes him hot. For the record I can't help my cleavage is there." Bulkeley went on to describe her mental state towards this "Paying a lady a compliment is one thing, but when you make a direct comment about their chest we have a problem."

Later on in the same day, while unloading some boxes for the convention there was another incident with Fannon. Bulkeley described this: "Well, [the witness and her husband] had to move their stuff from a friends airplane hangar (we all use as storage for cars and stuff) to a storage until next to their house. Apparently Sean, while at the hanger, made grunt noises about my tank top (it was 80 outside) while Tammy was in the truck. I did not see it. But she told me about it. Then as we were unloading the truck at the new facility Sean kept looking down my shirt and saying I have a great view etc. Her husband said to him to knock it off. I rolled my eyes, gave him a glare and continued to work. I did go and put on my event day jacket (light weight jacket) to cover up a little."

The witness, who was in the truck with Fannon, said that he "kept leering down at Diane, glancing down her shirt and making suggestive sounds." The witness said that Fannon commented "'I'm liking the view from up here.'"

Bulkeley talked about how Fannon continued his behavior later on in a restaurant, having dinner with some of the guests of the event. Fannon made inappropriate comments about her body and embarrassed her in front of the other, making her feel uncomfortable throughout the dinner.

Bulkeley said that Fannon also at one point touched her hair without asking, and smelled it as well. "[Fannon] even would smell my long hair. He begged me to not cut it off at a charity function that was part of the weekend's event." She said that he also pressed his pelvis tightly against her body while hugging her. These incidents occurred at a convention during the summer of 2017.

Fannon denies these events. "The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety."

When asked for comment, and being informed that this story was being compiled Fannon commented "I do not recall any such circumstance in which the aftermath included a discourse whereby I was informed of distress, anger, or discomfort." He went on to say "The only time I recall having ever been counseled or otherwise spoken to about my behavior in such matters is the Gamers Giving/Total Escape Games situation discussed above. The leader of the organization at that time spoke to me specifically, asked me to be aware that it had been an issue, and requested I be aware of it in the future. It was then formally dropped, and that was the end of it until this time."

There were further reports; however, we have respected the wishes of those women who asked to remain anonymous for fear of online harassment. In researching this article, I talked to multiple women and other witnesses.

About future actions against the alleged behaviors he also said "It is easy, after all, to directly attack and excise obviously predatory and harassing behavior. It is much more difficult to point out and correct behavior that falls within more subtle presentations, and it's more difficult to get folks to see their actions as harmful when they had no intention to cause harm, based on their assumptions of what is and isn't appropriate. It's good for us to look at the core assumptions that lead to those behaviors and continue to challenge them. That's how real and lasting change within society is achieved."

Fannon's weekly column will no longer be running on E.N. World.

Have you suffered harassment at the hands of someone, industry insider or otherwise, at a gaming convention? If you would like to tell your story, you can reach out to me via social media about any alleged incidents. We can speak confidentially, but I will have to know the identity of anyone that I speak with.

This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear.

More conventions are rolling out harassment policies for guests and attendees of their conventions. Not only does this help to protect attendees from bad behavior, but it can also help to protect conventions from bad actors within the various communities that gather at our conventions. As incidents of physical and sexual harassment are becoming more visible, it becomes more and more clear that something needs to be done.

additional editorial contributions by Morrus
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There is no solution to this problem because the entire world is filled with bad people who act badly and our society reinforces boorish behavior by portraying it favorably on TV shows that children watch.

For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs.

The game world is not going to be able to fix this societal problem by setting up rules and committees. The problem is too big to solve.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

improvement in small places will carry out into the larger sphere.
I agree. There is a saying that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Contrariwise, any advancement of justice, sets a useful precedent and good example for the rest of human society. If this is your larger point, then I'm on board.

However...

people don't want to hang out with harassers...

So you say. I have seen otherwise. If your life has, so far, only crossed paths with people who don't want to hang out with harassers, then you're doing something right, and I encourage you to keep doing it. But I consider this assertion recklessly, irresponsibly and dangerously inaccurate. I don't know how to summarize how many people's stories you are contradicting; people who were harassed (or worse), and after the harassment (or worse) came to light, the harasser remained popular and had a strong circle of support. I'm angry that you are ignoring or dismissing all those stories.

As one example, consider how many con groupies hang out with Benjamin "Sargon" Carl, whom Anita Sarkeesian names as one of her harassers. If you dismiss her accusations, fine; set aside this one example; I can list other examples, as needed. Here's another one: the former owner of the Miss Teen USA tournament, 2005 onwards, who delighted in surprise inspections of undressed teenage contestants. (Details, in his own words, in an earlier post.) (Hint: one of the people currently trying to hang out with him, a person of no small popularity himself, claims they both have "dragon energy"). Does that suffice, as an example or two to make my point? Would further examples be useful, or would debate over each example be useful?

One does not get the Titanic to New York's harbors, under the assumption that there are no icebergs in the Atlantic. One does not simply walk into Mordor, carrying the Ring, with the cheerful plan of "no one will oppose us along the way". One does not reduce con harassment without addressing push-back and counter-measures.

I hope this casual, carefree, confident assertion, about harassers having no buddies to support them, is secondary to your previous point, and that we can agree on the former while disagreeing with the latter.
 

Prepare as I cast Wall of Text!

Alas, the action economy is not in your favor. Casting Wall of Text takes you an action; in some game systems, a Complex Action.

Casting Derail, however, is a Reaction; trivially easy, by comparison.

In practice, Wall of Text is mainly useful on willing targets, and is very difficult to impose on foes.
 

A couple of thoughts -

They do have to keep it short, or there might be credible defense of, "You actually expected people to read all this?" The primary goal of the document is to delineate acceptable behavior, which folks discussing here have noted is a bit of a sticking point.

I think there's good reasons to not list the details of internal processes in an outward facing document. The con should *have* policies, yes. The last couple I knew the internal workings of had several different policies and action-trees for various cases, and they'd be rather long if made attendee-facing. And they have to have some leeway to deal with things that aren't cut-and-dried. Making public the internal processes (say, of decision making) give offenders an invitation to argue ("You didn't follow your own policy!"). In the end, for this document, the fact that the convention reserves the right to boot you if it deems necessary, *however* it makes that decision, is the primary bit.

The last time I had to register a complaint (two years ago) the con made perfectly clear what the privacy/cofidentiality policies were and what results-reporting would be before I told them anything, so I could make informed choices of the information to include.

Appeals and pre-con banning are not really issues that are dealt with *at* the con, and so are a little out of the purview of this particular document.

Having the level of detail with decision-trees, etc. is great! When I say I'd like harassment policies to talk about the process, I'm certainly not talking about that level of detail both since people's eyes will glaze over and it will lead to bad actors trying to game the system.

Mainly, I think it is necessary or at the very least useful to include:

- Who is making the decisions? Is it a committee? And if so, is it the top con-runners committee or a subset, etc? Is it the President if it is a company sponsored con? Just as an example, not to single them out, but Paizo talked about their policy for PaizoCon being "tell Lisa and she'll handle it", which on the surface sounds strong and decisive but is actually a really insufficient policy. Also with an industry as small as ours, knowing who is doing the investigation and determination can be important if some of the people running the con are close friends and/or business partners with someone who is accused.

- Maybe some sort of time frame? Nothing too strict, since there needs to be flexibility, but at least whether someone making a report should expect to hear back within X amount of time, etc. even if it is a "we're still looking into it." It could be as short as "We will attempt to update you on progress within 24 hours." since some people might not even know if they will ever hear anything back (and some conventions do never follow up with people who file reports even if they are handling the situation - setting some sort of follow up expectation helps remind the convention to keep the reporter in the loop).

Basically, more like setting expectations than really getting into the details of the decision tree process.

Also, it's good that they were clear with you about levels of confidentiality and expectations when you went to report. However, I also think that information would be more useful earlier, especially for more vulnerable groups who are uncomfortable with reporting at all. Ideally, having on the website not just "Our Harassment Policy" but additionally a "How to report harassment" page could include that information. It should also include a list of what sort of information the staff will need so that the person reporting can be better prepared. There's no reason a convention's harassment information needs to be just a single set of a few policy paragraphs. If someone needs more information dealing with something as sensitive as this, it would be nice to be able to get that information before having to talk to a live person.

So, technically, I suppose this information doesn't need to be part of the "Harassment Policy" per se, but it would be extremely useful to have it publicly available when necessary and not just rely on finding all of this out when you go to make a report.
 

To echo someone else earlier, what is your goal with this? Is it a snarky attack or just an attempt at some humor? Don’t know about others, but I’m confused.

Thank you for asking!

IMO, asking is often better than jumping to conclusions, at least when the poster has elsewhere made substantial arguments in good faith. DannyAlcatraz asked what we could do, to reduce harassment, and what price we would pay. I laid out a comprehensive working model, Alphacon vs. Betacon, for how cons can discourage harassment, and what I would pay to attend such a con, rather than the Status Quo. If that didn't tell you what team I'm on, then I don't know what will.

I'm making the point, snarkily, that this conversation isn't an isolated thing, off in the corner of our culture; I'm pointing out that harassment also is in the headlines. The 2016 USA election was, among other things, a national referendum on whether "grab her by the pussy" is a deal-breaker, for entrusting an individual with a position of power and influence. (TLDR: it's not.)

What I think might work - MIGHT - is looking to the larger Culture Wars, and seeing where communities have successfully reduced harassment. Then apply those methods to gaming cons. Once harassment stops being a norm of con behavior and FLGS behavior, then that cultural shift may influence the stories we tell around gaming tables, and therefore how often the fictional women in Greyhawk and Faerune experience harassment. (Gor and FATAL are still no-go zones.) Somewhere along the way, the game books will also shift - for example, there will be fewer monster illustrations who are "clearly asking for it" (such as the pureblood yuan-ti in the 5E MM, who for a *snake person* is still somehow showing off a lot of cleavage with her off-the-shoulder dress).

But that's only if the anti-harassment faction wins the Culture War *within* the TRPG community. It's not clear to me that the anti-harassment faction even has the upper hand. I mentioned That Guy, at the D&D game at my FLGS, the one who described his character as "rapey". The cleric of life with the overt goal of impregnating as many NPCs as possible. He offered a defeated female bandit the choice between *sex with him or summary execution*, I objected (playing a paladin), and *no one else at the table expressed any discomfort or concerns with his behavior*. The DM didn't gorram blink.

If anyone's about to claim "oh, that's a backwater thing, but it can't happen in the enlightened urban centers", then tell me which cities which are *more* progressive, liberal and/or feminist than San Francisco, because this happened in the outskirts of San Francisco, within commuting range.

Anyways, if you're still confused, what further explanation might be helpful?
 

I agree. There is a saying that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Contrariwise, any advancement of justice, sets a useful precedent and good example for the rest of human society. If this is your larger point, then I'm on board.

However...



So you say. I have seen otherwise. If your life has, so far, only crossed paths with people who don't want to hang out with harassers, then you're doing something right, and I encourage you to keep doing it. But I consider this assertion recklessly, irresponsibly and dangerously inaccurate. I don't know how to summarize how many people's stories you are contradicting; people who were harassed (or worse), and after the harassment (or worse) came to light, the harasser remained popular and had a strong circle of support. I'm angry that you are ignoring or dismissing all those stories.

As one example, consider how many con groupies hang out with Benjamin "Sargon" Carl, whom Anita Sarkeesian names as one of her harassers. If you dismiss her accusations, fine; set aside this one example; I can list other examples, as needed. Here's another one: the former owner of the Miss Teen USA tournament, 2005 onwards, who delighted in surprise inspections of undressed teenage contestants. (Details, in his own words, in an earlier post.) (Hint: one of the people currently trying to hang out with him, a person of no small popularity himself, claims they both have "dragon energy"). Does that suffice, as an example or two to make my point? Would further examples be useful, or would debate over each example be useful?

One does not get the Titanic to New York's harbors, under the assumption that there are no icebergs in the Atlantic. One does not simply walk into Mordor, carrying the Ring, with the cheerful plan of "no one will oppose us along the way". One does not reduce con harassment without addressing push-back and counter-measures.

I hope this casual, carefree, confident assertion, about harassers having no buddies to support them, is secondary to your previous point, and that we can agree on the former while disagreeing with the latter.

Fundamentally the people hanging out with harassers are themselves harassers. Just look at the language the people in this thread have used to defend harassers, they've defended harassment with harassment.

It's not that harassers don't have friends. Even the most terrible people in history had friends. It's that being friends with harassers usually says something about that friend and what sort of person they are.

Perhaps my language was unclear, it was to say people who do not want to be harassed, nor be harassers; do not hang out with harassers.
 

Fundamentally the people hanging out with harassers are themselves harassers. Just look at the language the people in this thread have used to defend harassers, they've defended harassment with harassment.

It's not that harassers don't have friends. Even the most terrible people in history had friends. It's that being friends with harassers usually says something about that friend and what sort of person they are.

Perhaps my language was unclear, it was to say people who do not want to be harassed, nor be harassers; do not hang out with harassers.

Oh, okay. Thank you for explaining. Now I'm 100% with you, on this point at least. Though I've played D&D with some people I'd rather not leave alone with my sisters.

Building on your point about defending the freedom to harass, by applying harassment: there is a faction here, who don't want cons infringing on the freedom for men to do anything *right* up to the limit of the law. In practice, not the law as written but the willingness and ability of police and courts to take the process all the way to conviction, and there's abundant examples of the criminal justice system failing to discourage even the most blatant and physically violent forms of harassment and abuse. The way some participants have treated other participants, in the this thread, indicates Proficiency, even Expertise, in the skill of going right up the limit, and stopping JUST short of the line which would result in top-down consequences.

One time, I was kinda surprised that my post didn't result in a mod PMing me with "hey, you're getting near the line." I'm punching upwards; maybe that helps? I mean, it's not morally okay for me to harass Christian Grey, but on another hand, people are a bit slower to rush to his defense, because he's not a helpless innocent.
 

You have posted this in your community member role, rather than your Moderator role, if I understand correctly. Is this therefore fair game for dissent, disagrement, and debate? Is the thread open to counter-arguments, asserting that we don't need boundaries, and that we don't need enforcement?

Moderator action is not based on whether you agree with the moderator. People disagree with mods all the time. We're grown ups, and can handle that.

That is not a promise that we won't find your disagreement problematic - but the fact that it is disagreement won't be the issue.
 

The impossibility of perfection is an objection often raised by those who are hoping nothing will be done at all.

Or it's good strategy, if you're evil.

(applause)

This is pragmatic and realistic. Assuming that EVERYONE has good faith intentions towards the shared goal of reducing harassment, is right up there with the historical error of Neville Chamberlain, who bragged that he had secured "peace in our time".

If you interpret my posts, any of them, or all of them in total, as a call for maintaining the status quo, as a defense of "boys will be boys", then perhaps you have made an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) error. (I've detailed, at length, what I would gladly give up, to participate in a more-inclusive, less-tolerant-of-harassment BetaCon.) At least you haven't made the far worse error, of assuming that IFF is unnecessary because we're all friends here at EN World. Some of us are more accurately described as "fine people on both sides".

I could quibble on the word choice of "good", because "effective" carries less of a mixed message. But this thread has already met 100% of my daily recommended dosage of quibbling.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top