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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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.

They're being hidden from *you* (the global you) for fear of online harassment. That does not mean they were anonymous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

R

RevTurkey

Guest
I don’t like this direction Enworld is taking...posting judgemental articles about people’s personal lives. It’s a minefield of finger pointing and encourages stupid comments from the ill-informed and could be very damaging to those involved. I think positive articles about treating fellow gamers respectfully would be better than all this naming and shaming. It lacks class. If somebody has alleged to have commited a crime then take it to the authorities and them investigate properly.
 

jimmifett

Banned
Banned
But how do you know this? You yourself, upthread, called for us to always seek high standards of evidence before making serious accusations. It seems to me that you're not following your own advice.

You have me confused with someone else, I said listen and investigate, not high standards of evidence. And yes, this is a counter allegation by Fannon. Should it prove to be true, there you have it. If someone wishes to follow up and investigate with the board she seems to be on to see if this occurred, that might just put the issue to rest of a vengeful person.
 

Obryn

Hero
There you have it, gamergate is not a hate group, but because it opposes the ideals and yellow "journalism" that has been demonstrably proven to organize together across sites to determine narrative, they are attacked, maligned, and every effort made to ruin supporters.
lol

Yes, ToR as I will refer to it as.
Why? Because you don't feel great about going to bat for a product called Tournament of Rapists?

You may frequently vote with your dollar, and that is fantastic. But those that seek to prevent others from even having that choice is a cancer to any industry. As i've said before, they are just the 21st century Jack Chicks.
That is uh ... not how anything works. At all.

You vote with your dollar by patronizing/not patronizing DTRPG. I do the same. Knowing this, DTRPG responded by contacting the author, who subsequently took it off of the site.

DTRPG is under no obligation to sell anything. We decide whether or not to buy books from DTRPG.

Your last point is a meaningless strawman, I wont bother to address.
Why not?
 

jimmifett

Banned
Banned
They're being hidden from *you* for fear of online harassment. That does not mean they were anonymous.

I do hope that you are not inferring that *I* am someone that goes around harassing people.

I will therefore take it as the *you* to instead mean *general public*, as a writing faux pas and we can all have a nice day.
 

zen_hydra

First Post
WT actual F!? It boggles the mind to see all these, let's generously call them "people," coming out of the woodwork in support of misogyny. I just... I'm really disappointed.
 


Doug McCrae

Legend
You have me confused with someone else, I said listen and investigate, not high standards of evidence.
Isn't that what investigate means? To gather more evidence? We already have a certain amount of evidence. You deem it to be insufficient to change our attitude or behaviour towards Fannon, and thus before we can do so we need to gather more.

so far this article seems like tar and feathering. Especially when accusers are not identified. That is the high point of false allegations. 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.
What is this other than a call for higher standards of evidence? Namely the identities of the accusers.

You have been saying that these are merely allegations, that we need to investigate, and that accusers need to be identified. I would summarise all that as a call for higher standards of evidence.

And if such evidence is forthcoming, evidence that does substantially increase the likelihood Fannon has sexually harrassed women, then I'm sure you will change your opinion of him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Discussion point:

Assuming the rate of vindictive "false reporting" for harassment runs at about 5% (which is a little lower than the average rate of criminal false accusation, but is a nice round number).

Is it better for 19 honest women who feel harassed to be harmed by having their stories disbelieved, or for 1 honest man to be destroyed by false accusations?

Apocryphal Benjamin Franklin and Rene Descarte quotes aside, that should be easy math for us nerds. "The needs of the many..."
 

If multiple unrelated people told you someone had beaten them up at a convention, would you feel the same way?
If several individuals told you that someone in the industry had stolen from them at a Con, would you also want that person freely invited back to other Cons? Would you want to attend a Convention with them?
If numerous people reported that a individual flagrantly cheated at a game, would you want them at your table?

Think on that.
Seriously.
If I told you that while at GenCon 2014 I met Morrus at the Marriott bar and he was drunk, belligerent, and kicked the every living :):):):) out of me in a hallway. Would you respond with “allegedly”? Would you question the accusation?

(For the record, the above is totally not true.)

The article's name is "Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done". The article uses the word "alleges". That's my beef. The article is playing both sides. It's skirting legal necessities, while casting judgement upon Fannon.

I don't know if Sean is guilty. I don't assume the victims were not harassed.

If you told me you were punched at a con in a conversation, I would most likely believe you. If I read it on the internet, I would only have the fact you presented to me. That is the issue here. Apparently, the goal of this article was to say Fannon's work would no longer appear here and several victims came forward with claims against him.

If you read on the internet that President Obama alleged raped a woman, would you want more than that?

I assume ENWorld holds some type of "journalistic integrity" for our hobby. We were presented with victims accounts and a lecture on being better behaved and given the announcement that ENWorld would no longer be a venue for Fannon--which easily appears like a judgement against him.

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.

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.

ENWorld has every right to part ways with anyone they want. But I'm not sure that this warning about harassment in our community and treatment of Fannon won't leave them open to some form of libel from Fannon.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top