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

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The BDSM community focuses on that, in no small part, because they have to in order to thrive as they push beyond what polite society would consider normal boundaries. If they didn't build in their own, clearer boundaries and aggressively defend them, I'm sure they'd fracture because they'd be swamped with bad actors who thought they could get away with literally anything.

WIth respect, the bad actor issue is secondary, and that's important for this discussion.

A nominally *good* actor, if left to intuit or read between the lines, will get it wrong occaisionally. And in that community, if they get it wrong, they are committing assault, sexual assault, and/or rape. The clear lines and requirement of clear consent are necessary to prevent the basic misunderstanding that turns what was intended to be a good experience for all into trauma and a crime.

What behavior is acceptable and desired between people is context dependant. Consent is what informs you of what context you are in.

That's a clarification, but the end point is the same. We need clear boundaries of what behavior is acceptable in the convention context, and enforcement of those boundaries. Not just to prevent agaisnt bad actors, but so that people who are acting in good faith have the information required to do so.

All those who say, "OMG, the menfolk will be victimized!" fail to see the point that the clear statement of lines protects the good actors among them from misunderstanding.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fergurg

Explorer
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!
This should be fun.

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.)

We'll cover this later, but a lot of this discussion needs to first detail what is and is not sexual harassment before determining how much there is, even with the vague amount of "a lot".

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.

Probably right.

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

I would say as close to zero as realistically possible without creating worse problems.

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.

Sorry, but unless you are a moderator, that is not your decision to make.

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

It is my observation that much of what is labeled a Distraction is really Evidence That Disproves A Claim.

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.

This is where we disagree; if an example is given that the details show to not be harassment, then the details are not a Distraction, but Evidence That Disproves A Claim. That is the opposite of a Distraction.

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.

I have not heard anyone say that a convention should not punish attendees for behaviors that are not crimes.

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.

I won't speak for others, but my worry about false accusations comes from the fact that there is a loud chorus of people who literally want NO diligence made on reports of harassment. They want the accusation to be the evidence, with anything that would conflict with the accusation to be ignored and dismissed as a Distraction.

You gave an example of a vendor reporting a theft. It is true that a vendor reporting a theft would be presumed genuine and honest, but that is not the same as presuming that the theft happened. It is presumed that the vendor believes he was stolen from, which means determining whether or not a theft happened. And you can be very sure that if a vendor accuses a specific person of theft, that it is not assumed that the person stole and you can be damn sure that anything showing that the theft didn't happen would not be dismissed as a Distraction.

How does that sound?

It sounds like you want to move on to the point where people agree with you and go with what you want. In particular, literally seeking to dismiss disagreement as Distractions, and even labeling contrary evidence as Distractions.

So that being said - How can we do better?

The way we can do better is by addressing something that NOBODY has said anything about, though many have hinted at it. There is not an agreement of what exactly harassment is.

We know and agree on some of the easy stuff - no groping, no stalking, no graphic comments to the person. But what if I am talking to my friend about a woman, does that woman get to have me thrown out because of a conversation that she was not a part of? How about taking pictures of the convention goers? I have heard stories of people thrown out of conventions for talking about Trump or abortion, claiming that their opinions were sexist, and people who overheard it complained about harassment.

And how much should offsite conduct play in convention rules enforcement? There are people in this very thread that have said that they feel unsafe going to conventions because of opinions of some of the people here; should those people be barred?

Am I saying that all of these things need to be considered in order to significantly reduce harassment? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING! If there is no agreement on what harassment is, how do you intend to stop it?
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
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?

The latter bullet point is great and I think necessary. The former is trickier. I think the safest bet there is to follow the legal definition harassment, which is if the target feels harassed, the behavior that is causing it, whatever it is, is harassment.

Which sucks, because people are going to be clamoring for a strict, no-nonsense definition of which behaviors are or are not included, but the simple fact is that harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Behaviors that would bother one person would be fine with another. I mean, there are some are basic universal ones (don't touch without their consent, cosplay is not consent, respect people's boundaries) but if anyone wants a list of what behaviors are or are not okay for everyone that list isn't going to get much longer than that.

There will also be a lot of hemming and hawing over how some nerds have no social graces and etc. etc. but real talk for a moment; if somebody has so few social graces that they cannot help but unintentionally make others feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome, maybe they don't belong at a large crowded social gathering?
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I would say as close to zero as realistically possible without creating worse problems.

Similar to your contention that there is disagreement on what constitutes harassment, there is disagreement on what would be "worse problems".

Some participants in this thread would include the following as problems that are worse than sexual harassment itself:
- Men not feeling free to hit on women
- The chance that doing so might result in being "outed" for that behavior in the media
- Women having credibility that is independent of formal investigations

In other words, any threat to the status quo would be a worse problem. They're ok with reducing harassment, just as long as doing so doesn't inconvenience them.
 

The way we can do better is by addressing something that NOBODY has said anything about, though many have hinted at it. There is not an agreement of what exactly harassment is.

We know and agree on some of the easy stuff - no groping, no stalking, no graphic comments to the person. But what if I am talking to my friend about a woman, does that woman get to have me thrown out because of a conversation that she was not a part of? How about taking pictures of the convention goers? I have heard stories of people thrown out of conventions for talking about Trump or abortion, claiming that their opinions were sexist, and people who overheard it complained about harassment.

And how much should offsite conduct play in convention rules enforcement? There are people in this very thread that have said that they feel unsafe going to conventions because of opinions of some of the people here; should those people be barred?

Am I saying that all of these things need to be considered in order to significantly reduce harassment? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING! If there is no agreement on what harassment is, how do you intend to stop it?

I agree that this is a very important and constructive question.

(Also, I was stating what conversation I am interested in having, and I see others are interested in having, and is productive moving forward. If people want to talk about other stuff or debate #1-3, I'm not stopping them. I'm not trying to moderate the thread. I'm just saying that I see that as a waste of time and not part of the conversation I am interested in or see as productive. If others disagree, then fine. Have your own conversation even in this thread.)


So, first is a definition of what constitutes harassment. Secondly is the issue of incidents/reports outside of the convention.

Tackling the first... well... first... how should a convention define and clarify what would be considered harassment? That's a problem I see A LOT of conventions having where they are very strongly against harassment but never clarify what it is.

How about this as a start:

"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments [related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, [your specific concern here]], sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately."

For a real world convention policy (as opposed to rules-lawyering getting into bizarre hypotheticals, because we are gamers after all) :), how would you feel about this as a definition of harassment at a convention you want to attend? Obviously after filling in the brackets with details, is this a clear enough definition for you that you feel you could:

1) Avoid the problem of a good actor misunderstanding (as Umbran mentions above with a different context of BDSM)?

2) Feel confident that if you were in a potentially harassing situation, you could be clear that it would or would not be considered harassment by the convention?

3) If you were a witness to a potentially harassing situation, you could be clear that it would or would not be considered harassment by the convention?

Also, are there any (again, realistic) situations you might imagine being in (or have been in) or witnessed that you would consider as harassment that is NOT covered by this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
So I will answer one more time- either you understand, or you don't. Before you reply again, I really recommend going back to the beginning of this thread and seeing all of my responses last week.

Then get back to me about selective tone policing.

I want you to know I did take the time to do this, and I do see you doing some of the exact work I called on you to do. Which is fantastic. I do owe you an apology for being overly aggressive (in a post that was, ostensibly, about not cannibalizing our own, no less).

One thing I will say is that some of those posts were also fairly sarcastic and troll-y, so I'm not the only one immune from self-serving hypocrisy. :p

The other thing is that I will not agree with is that there is ever an appropriate place for tone policing. It's a bad look for the people who are targeted by it, it's a bad look for the people who are doing it, and the only people who gain from it are the people who can lean on it as an excuse to not take the problem seriously in the first place.
 

The latter bullet point is great and I think necessary. The former is trickier. I think the safest bet there is to follow the legal definition harassment, which is if the target feels harassed, the behavior that is causing it, whatever it is, is harassment.

Which sucks, because people are going to be clamoring for a strict, no-nonsense definition of which behaviors are or are not included, but the simple fact is that harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Behaviors that would bother one person would be fine with another. I mean, there are some are basic universal ones (don't touch without their consent, cosplay is not consent, respect people's boundaries) but if anyone wants a list of what behaviors are or are not okay for everyone that list isn't going to get much longer than that.

There will also be a lot of hemming and hawing over how some nerds have no social graces and etc. etc. but real talk for a moment; if somebody has so few social graces that they cannot help but unintentionally make others feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome, maybe they don't belong at a large crowded social gathering?

I do agree that it largely is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not quite ready to throw that baby out with the bathwater yet. (Although, admittedly, that's a stupid use of that analogy because are you *ever* ready to throw a baby out with the bathwater?? :) Anyway!)

I think a policy that clearly lists certain behaviors as examples and is clear that it's not an exhaustive list would be far more useful and productive than leaving it in the opinion of the victim. For one thing, there's the usual points raised about putting too much power in the victim's hands then to accuse about whatever they want blah blah, but a more reasonable worry I see if it also puts too much responsibility on the victim. There have been many conventions that took the aspect of "what does the victim want" too far, and put an undue burden on the victim rather than taking on the responsibility themselves.

So, in my opinion, a convention making a clear list (but also noting it's not exhaustive and there is an aspect of subjective interpretation), protects the victims as well by taking on the responsibility of being the judge rather than adding it onto the victim as an extra burden.

Maybe we have to wind up with what you state as being the best option, but, personally, I'd like to take some time and explore other options before settling on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Fergurg

Explorer
Similar to your contention that there is disagreement on what constitutes harassment, there is disagreement on what would be "worse problems".

Some participants in this thread would include the following as problems that are worse than sexual harassment itself:
- Men not feeling free to hit on women
- The chance that doing so might result in being "outed" for that behavior in the media
- Women having credibility that is independent of formal investigations

In other words, any threat to the status quo would be a worse problem. They're ok with reducing harassment, just as long as doing so doesn't inconvenience them.

Is that what people have said, or is that just you belief on what "some participants" must really mean, but are speaking in code?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top