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

pemerton

Legend
How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?
I am very far from expert in any sorts of event management or behaviour-change management. So what follows is based on intuitions from more abstract and generic study of social norm formation and promulgation.

I think a lot of people will treat a policy like terms and conditions. I think what will make it salient is, over time, knowledge of enforcement and the response of people to enforcement. I don't think this will make more people read the policy. I think it will help the standards in the policy be taken up as behavioural norms. To put what I think is the same idea in slightly different terms: I think what will make the standards effective is not that people intellectually understand them and bring their behaviour into conformity, but rather that people experience them as social expectations, and so bring their behaviour into conformity in the same (non-rational) sort of way that they conform with other social expectations.

If what I'm conjecturing is right, or even partly right, I think it reinforces how important it is for event organisers to apply the standards they set for their events, and to not be afraid of applying them publicly. I think this is how norms are promulgated and become part of everyday social expectations.

I am going to take the risk of putting forward an imperfect and possibly controversial comparison - I hope the controversy is not too much. I live in a country that recently had a nationwide "plebisicite" on whether or not the national Marriage Act should be amended to permit same-sex marriage. Many people opposed the holding of the plebiscite, on the grounds that it would stir up vicious debate. (And as a matter of law the plebisicite was unnecessary - it was purely an officially-sanctioned opinion poll, similar in that respect to the Brexit plebiscite in the UK, and not needed to bring about the legislative change, which required only an Act of Parliament.)

When those people lost that argument (both politically and in a court case), they then campaigned hard and - despite some viciousness from the other side - won the plebiscite itself in a 60/40 vote. For those who were not part of that process, it is hard to describe what it was like to have so many affirmative stories (about love, about relationships, about parents and children, about inclusion, about pluralism, about the value of embracing diversity) being told so often, in public, shaping the national discussion and the national vote. One person whom I've known for nearly 20 years, and whom when I first met him would have thought the whole debate an unnecessary sideshow and might even have voted no, had a huge Yes poster proudly displayed on his office door.

What changed him, and what changed the country - of which he is just as representative as anyone who would have voted yes 20 years ago - wasn't an intellectual process. The society wasn't changed by argument. The vicious opposition wasn't defeated by way of an intellectual process. The country was changed by some people being bravely public (about their lives, about who they loved and lived with, about who their children loved, etc) and some others joining and supporting them, and over time - but very rapidly compared to some other changes in human communitieis - changing the balance of normative expectations. The opposition was not refuted. It was simply revealed as out of touch with the community it was purporting to speak for.

Like I said, the comparison is imperfect for all sorts of reasons. Still, I think articles like the OP, and threads like this, can help in the same sort of process of changing norms around harassing behaviour. But because they happen online, in a medium that people who don't like the signals can opt out of, they have limits. I think signals that are sent in "real life", that people participating in public RPGing can't avoid and can't pretend are from some irrelevant "leftist" minority, are what will make the bigger difference.

I hope this post might seem optimistic (about what can be achieved) and not just pessimistic (about how quickly or effectively it can be achieved).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Nope.

Wish I knew magic words to open your eyes, but I don't.

P.S. And, yes, "cuffed on the head" is corporal punishment. For a child, being struck (not in play) by an adult, especially a parent, is traumatic. It doesn't actually matter how much it hurts; it's the symbolism of using physical force to coerce behavior that causes damage. I'd suggest you actually read some research before spouting nonsense on this issue.

I've been hit by my dad twice ever. I don't remember exactly when (I think I was ~10) and I don't remember what it was for, but I still flinch when my dad raises his hand in completely non-threatening ways. I'm 32.
 

Mick Price

First Post
Doesn't sound like harassment to me but a player being a player, if these girls thought he was more attractive they wouldn't call it harassment.

You have to be assertive, you have to put yourself out there, you have to be take as many swings at bat as you can and most of the time you strike out but you won't ever get anywhere if you don't try.

The world is going to hell with all this political correctness and third wave feminism.

[This is almost the exact same comment you made last time you were threadbanned for defending harassment at conventions. This time it's not just a threadban. - Morrus]

This isn't being a "player" this is being an offensive inconsiderate and yes a harrasser. Sure you have to put yourself out there, but when you get a rejection you take it. You don't turn up later the same day saying "We know each other now". Nor do you talk about the great view down someone's shirt when they clearly aren't interested in your attentions. I am no feminist, in fact I'm anti-feminist in a lot of ways, but this isn't about feminism, it's about decency and respect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
How do we prevent an anti-harassment policy from being treated like the "Terms and Conditions" that no one ever reads when they download software or sign up for a new monthly service? Yes, enforce the policy, but how do we make sure that people understand the importance of knowing that policy and abiding by it?

In general: By having the moment of registration not be the only time the attendees are exposed to the topic.

So, some items that can probably help:

The act of enforcement tends to create awareness, even if the Converntion doesn't publicize it. Conventions tend to be community affairs, such that there is a grapevine. "Hey, did you hear about Joe? He got banned from the con for X..."

Make the existence of the policy, and it's importance, part of pre-convention publications.

Send convention staff to relevant training - they will discuss it with their friends, and word spreads. Make that trainign a relevant point in pre-convention status communications.

Have relevant communications up around the conventiuon area - "Cosplay is not consent" posters are becoming common, as one example.

Have convention safety/security people visibly nearby the dances and parties.

Have appropriate topics on the convention panel discussion schedule. Have your major guests take part in public discussiosn of related topics.

Keep representation balance in mind when inviting guests.
 

Sadras

Legend
Ah, so you only skimmed what I initially wrote.

No I read it all, I just chose to comment on one thing alone in my second post.

So, yes, in theory absentee fathers can be discussed without racist undertones, but the post in question make three points:
- Sons should be taught to treat women well
- Absentee fathers are the problem here
- Kids should be smacked upside the head

There is a theme of conservative paternalism, which often goes hand-in-hand with latent racism.

Of course, anybody who thinks conservative paternalism is the right and proper way of things is not going to see the pattern

Are you seriously accusing the poster of having a racist agenda from that single post?
Given that we are discussing Sexual Harassment at Cons, the race issue has not been mentioned, to the best of my knowledge (and I haven't read this entire thread).

The way I read it and would expect it to be understood is that we have a societal issue with the family unit breaking down, lack of discipline is increasing in kids, male role models are hard to come by...etc.

Maybe I am naive, as not once did I think the poster was making a race claim. And SPF is white!

The defense that "absentee fathers or single parent households is not a one-colour issue" is an absolute red herring.

I did not intend it to be a red herring it was said in earnest. I have a sister and a good friend that within this last year both became single parents shortly after their second child.
 

RedJenOSU

First Post
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
Looking at the example from entertainment. The acceptance of the behavior displayed in TV and movies has changed over the years. Just look at Bugs Bunny if you need examples.

"Many cartoons from previous decades are routinely edited on international television (and on some video and DVD collections) today. Usually, the only censorship deemed necessary is the cutting of the occasional racist joke, instance of graphic violence, or scene of a character doing something that parents and watchdog groups fear children will try to imitate, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, or self-harming activities such as depictions of suicide.

(Tom & Jerry example - the link is below)

However, racial themes are so prominent in these cartoons that United Artists believed that no amount of selective editing could ever make them acceptable for distribution.

(history stuff)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3 ... warns the audience about some of these shorts, stating that although the behavior was and is not acceptable, the cartoons depicting this are a vital part of history and should not be forgotten. The Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 4 collection includes a similar disclaimer, written on a gold card and merely summarized the point that while the cartoons are considered offensive today for what they depict, they are going to be shown uncut because editing out the racist depictions—and therefore effectively saying the racist scenes were never there and that the racism of the era ever happened—is worse than actually showing them uncensored." http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/Censored_Eleven

Looking back at other things from the time of Cheers: Sixteen Candles includes one male character giving a drunk and unconscious Caroline to Farmer Ted and telling Ted to do what he wants with her. Ted leaves with Caroline and has sex with her while she is in no way able to give consent. Later, Caroline is okay with the fact that someone had sex with her unconscious body. Where my younger self thought the overall movie was sweet, it makes my skin crawl and I describe the film a showing rape in a positive light. The lack of respect for Caroline's bodily autonomy is my main issue with the film.

(Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead.)

TLDR: The behaviors shown in TV, film, and other modes of entertainment change with what is acceptable in society at the time they are made. Change what is acceptable and you change the content. Note the lack of black face in modern entertainment.

(Edit typos)
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
For example, the character Sam on Cheers is constantly harrassing women, and this is played for laughs.

*WAS*

Sam *was* harassing women. It *was* played for laughs.

That series ended a quarter century ago.

Meanwhile, a more modern sitcom like, say, Community, has a philandering womanizer as a main character, and this is shown to be a character flaw, and his growth arc includes leaving that behavior behind. The show also has much better gender and racial balance than Cheers.


A young man with a father will be cuffed on the head if he disrespects his mother or sisters.

Except, of course, if his father is a misogynist lout, in which case this behavior wil be supported.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Particle_Man

Explorer
To get around the terms and conditions issue maybe have a lot of “Here is what to do if you have been harassed” posters everywhere. That might make people actually read the other stuff that says what behaviour won’t be tolerated.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top