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

Riley37

First Post
In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.

It's almost as if there are men who don't want this conversation to happen! Some of them charge in shouting "FEMINAZIS!" and get banned, while others are more subtle and play the long game.

Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be obviously harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it. People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.

Yup. Nailed it. Alcohol makes certain dynamics and motivations more *visible*.

See also, guys who don't use certain words when sober. Drunk or sober, they're *thinking* in the categories of those words; this person is a $%&#, that person is a *%&#. Then when they're drunk, they start openly saying what they're thinking... and they expect us to pretend that alcohol is the problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jimtillman

Explorer
These aren't, for obvious reasons, universal rules. But if other cons banned alcohol and saw a drop in harassment reports, and Dragoncon didn't, then either its reputation as a "party con" would grow, or it would start to pick up other, not-so-nice reputations.

In any case, I think talking about alcohol has become something of a distraction from the point here.

We want to reduce harassment. Harassment is a type of behaviour, so what we want to do is police behaviour while at a con. Drinking is incidental in this case as people who are likely to harass while drunk are probably also people who would harass while sober, if maybe they would be less obvious about it. Alcohol doesn't make people into harassers, it lessens mental inhibitions, making it more likely for a harasser to be obviously harassing, as opposed to being clever or subtle about it. People who are not inclined to harass, are unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) to harass while drunk.


while i do agree that the more aggressive harassers are usually like that sober or not,
the same is not in my experience true of the average person that goes to far in hitting on people and does nto take no for an answer
i know a ton of people that are very polite and reserved normally, even shy
but get few drinks in them and they get handsie as hell
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
while i do agree that the more aggressive harassers are usually like that sober or not,
the same is not in my experience true of the average person that goes to far in hitting on people and does nto take no for an answer
i know a ton of people that are very polite and reserved normally, even shy
but get few drinks in them and they get handsie as hell

As [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] points out, the problem with those "tons of people" is that they are still thinking all the same same thoughts harassers are, they're just better at keeping a lid on them when sober. And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are bad things. The problem remains that they're still thinking them.

Alcohol doesn't make these people handsy. It just makes it harder for them to control their handsy behaviour.
 

jimtillman

Explorer
It's almost as if there are men who don't want this conversation to happen! Some of them charge in shouting "FEMINAZIS!" and get banned, while others are more subtle and play the long game.



Yup. Nailed it. Alcohol makes certain dynamics and motivations more *visible*.

See also, guys who don't use certain words when sober. Drunk or sober, they're *thinking* in the categories of those words; this person is a $%&#, that person is a *%&#. Then when they're drunk, they start openly saying what they're thinking... and they expect us to pretend that alcohol is the problem.


while it is of course entirely true that there are plenty of jerks that harass woman while sober.
a lot of incidents and i would argue probably majority of harassment that happens at cons and parties involve alcohol.
there are plenty of normally polite non aggressive people who yes might think about how much they want to sleep with , that's called being human and there is nothing wrong with wanting to screw people nor for that matter with asking people out, as long as you can take no for an answer.
but get a few drinks in them and they lose there fears and inhibitions and they act in ways that they would not act if they were sober,
drugs and alcohol reduce inhibitions that's a simple fact ,
from a practical point it does not matter what a person thinks , what matters is what they do .
now there being drunk is not an excuse for there bad behavior , people are responsible for how they handle there booze.
but it is something to keep in mind.
a drunk dude is likely not care about a harassment policy and many a sexual assault happens when a sexual predator they find a drunk woman that is not able to give consent.
this makes it important to know how to keep an eye out for people around you that are drunk and acting in inappropriate ways, to get the word out when people that are known to be a problem when drunk are going to be at a con and to inform the con if you believe that person to be a potential problem.
 

jimtillman

Explorer
As [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] points out, the problem with those "tons of people" is that they are still thinking all the same same thoughts harassers are, they're just better at keeping a lid on them when sober. And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are bad things. The problem remains that they're still thinking them.

Alcohol doesn't make these people handsy. It just makes it harder for them to control their handsy behaviour.

pretty much everyone has dark thoughts upon occasion , that's normal
what matters is the actions that people take.

also harasser is not some blanket category
it ranges from a person that asks a person out a few times when its not wanted all the way to
to serial rapists.

and how harassers are dealt with needs to vary with the severity of the issue
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
pretty much everyone has dark thoughts upon occasion , that's normal
what matters is the actions that people take.

also harasser is not some blanket category
it ranges from a person that asks a person out a few times when its not wanted all the way to
to serial rapists.

and how harassers are dealt with needs to vary with the severity of the issue

And none of that is relevant to the conversation.

Thoughts become action, here's a video, it's on racism, but just replace every time he says "racism" with "sexual harassment" and the point remains the same.
[video=youtube;g9n_UPyVR5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9n_UPyVR5s[/video]

When you chuckle at a sexist joke. When you oogle at a woman a little too often. When you don't actively stand up when someone else commits harassment. These are the things that "thoughts" enable us to do. Those bad thoughts need to be policed just as much as bad actions, because bad thoughts always lead to bad actions, drunk or sober.
 

Riley37

First Post
As [MENTION=6786839]And yeah, that's great some people who think bad things can still behave well in public because they know the bad things in their head are bad things. The problem remains that they're still thinking them.

True, but beware slippery slope. I have bad things in my mind too. I have made a categorical choice not to act on those bad things. No matter what fantasies I have about that cute/hot Princess Daphne cosplayer , I still recognize her as a *person*. My inhibition, against treating a person as a target for predatory behavior, is so deep in my personality that alcohol cannot dissolve that inhibition. (Apparently some men have inhibitions on a more soluble basis.)

So if the con had to act on the basis of what I was *thinking*, then the con would have to boot me. As long as the con limits its enforced policy to behavior which affects others, however, I will not show up on their Anti-Predator Radar.

If the woman in the Princess Daphne cosplay can sense my thoughts, just from subtle cues, then she might choose to avoid me. That's fine; I will not pursue, and she will find it easy to avoid me. The guy who *insists* on sitting next to her, is more of a problem. If he continues to pursue further contact, then sooner or later she might tell him to back off, or perhaps bystanders will advise him to back off. If those measures fail, then the con policy, enforced by con staff, is the next level of recourse.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
True, but beware slippery slope. I have bad things in my mind too. I have made a categorical choice not to act on those bad things. No matter what fantasies I have about that cute/hot Princess Daphne cosplayer , I still recognize her as a *person*. My inhibition, against treating a person as a target for predatory behavior, is so deep in my personality that alcohol cannot dissolve that inhibition. (Apparently some men have inhibitions on a more soluble basis.)

So if the con had to act on the basis of what I was *thinking*, then the con would have to boot me. As long as the con limits its enforced policy to behavior which affects others, however, I will not show up on their Anti-Predator Radar.

If the woman in the Princess Daphne cosplay can sense my thoughts, just from subtle cues, then she might choose to avoid me. That's fine; I will not pursue, and she will find it easy to avoid me. The guy who *insists* on sitting next to her, is more of a problem. If he continues to pursue further contact, then sooner or later she might tell him to back off, or perhaps bystanders will advise him to back off. If those measures fail, then the con policy, enforced by con staff, is the next level of recourse.

And I'm not arguing that.

What I'm getting at is that fundamentally we have to address what we think as much as what we do. Because what we think inevitably bleeds into what we do. Even if we're really good at limiting that bleed, it's always there.

When my dad taught me how to drive, he told me "the car goes where your eyes go". And its true, because consciously or not, your body follows your eyes. When your body follows your eyes, your arms turn the wheel and inevitably, the car goes where your eyes go.

For some people, there may be more delay between when the car follows your eyes. The only way you can keep the car from going where it shouldn't is to keep your eyes on the road.

These sorts of things aren't always conscious, that's why we have to address what's in our heads, as much as our actions. If we're good at addressing our actions, then we need to move on to the next step.
 

Riley37

First Post
These sorts of things aren't always conscious, that's why we have to address what's in our heads, as much as our actions. If we're good at addressing our actions, then we need to move on to the next step.

Ah. Insofar as "we" means "the people trying to do more good and less harm, with an awareness of power differentials", then yes, I agree. Those who are, at least, trying; with imperfect, mortal levels of success.

Insofar as "we" means "the gaming con community as a whole", well, that's a different "we". That "we" includes many who are not trying. That "we" includes some people who are less interested in self-improvement, and more interested in what they can get away with, or how trashed they can get on alcohol (because somehow that's more fun at a con, than it would be alone at home?), or how many "swings at bat" they can take as a pick-up artist.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Ah. Insofar as "we" means "the people trying to do more good and less harm, with an awareness of power differentials", then yes, I agree. Those who are, at least, trying; with imperfect, mortal levels of success.

Insofar as "we" means "the gaming con community as a whole", well, that's a different "we". That "we" includes many who are not trying. That "we" includes some people who are less interested in self-improvement, and more interested in what they can get away with, or how trashed they can get on alcohol (because somehow that's more fun at a con, than it would be alone at home?), or how many "swings at bat" they can take as a pick-up artist.

Well yes, obviously the people who don't care are ya know, the problem. It's on the rest of us to deal with that.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top