• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Bagpuss

Legend
And there's Bagpuss, taking my answer to his question, as if I had made a *demand* about how Gygax wrote D&D in the 1970s. He takes the answer to my question as a pretext to insult my understanding of gradual progress. This is clearly trolling; the question was a set-up, not a good-faith request for information; but is it over the line, into harassment?

So have "be annoying" as part of an harassment policy, claim asking questions is annoying "trolling", claim only the trolling the left is a sign some one is alt-right (ah sorry wasn't you that said that).

QED Bagpuss is an Alt-Right troll.

Actually I'm genuinely interested how you can infer it is racist because authors on the reading list included bigots, then moments later use the same reading list, to show all the progressive authors that were his influence as well.

That's not my decision to make, so I'm alerting those who make that decision.

Then call the mods...

If you have any thoughts on what cons can do to address harassment, if you have any willingness to step up as part of the solution, then hey, post accordingly.

Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lylandra

Adventurer
Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.

Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying.

For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.

So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem.

Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.
 

Bagpuss

Legend
Nah, "annoying" is just fine to keep. The problem is that there might be people (especially those who are socially handicapped) who don't understand that they are being annoying.

For example, as a child I regularly busted card-playing sessions of strangers at the beach. I ran around them, peeked at their cards and then told everyone about the cards they were holding. I was totally annoying and kept them from having fun. But I didn't understand that. I just wanted to learn their game and understand what they did and why.

So ideally, we'd need a process on how to educate folks that they are being annoying, why they are being annoying and that they should better stop that behaviour if they want to get along with other con-goers. The easiest way is that if you feel annoyed, you tell the person that he/she annoys you and should stop. Not stopping would warrant going to con staff and talk about your problem.

Still there are people who are too afraid to tell even a person who's merely annoying to stop doing whatever they are doing because they fear negative consequences. And there we'd need an intermediate agent. Not necessarily a security person, but rather a mediator.

I agree with to an extent, however you see stuff like at VidCon where just sitting in the front row is 'threatening', or above where just asking questions is 'annoying', and someone will claim that constitutes harassment and call security.

We can all (again "all" being limited to those with a sense of empathy) agree 'cat-calls' are harassment. Then you get in looking at what point does it become leering? The two extremes of a quick glance, and stalking round a con taking pictures are clear, but it doesn't depend on the actions of the person looking as to when it crosses the grounds into making the person viewed feel uncomfortable, it depends on their feelings. Considering that as you say some people are too afraid to say anything, with no indication as to when that line has been crossed how is the person looking to know when to moderate their behaviour.

Generally these are skills that people pick up socialising during the course of their life, but not everyone does. In what has historically been a male dominated space, you are probably going to find a higher proportion of people that haven't picked up those skills with dealing with the opposite sex.
 

Riley37

First Post
QED Bagpuss is an Alt-Right troll.

Well, now you've said something I can agree with! Common ground at last!

"Just kidding - but am I?" or "This is what the feminazis are really saying" are classic staples of the alt-right troll.

Then call the mods...

Well, I *guess* that's agreement, of a sort. I'm actually rather obedient, whenever you order me to do something, that I already told you I was doing. (Were you unclear on whom I meant, by "those who make that decision"?)

Remove "annoying" from harassment policies as it is too broad, it allows for easy false claims, as it is just down to the feelings of alleged victim.

I should have framed my request more specifically; I said "what cons can do to address harassment", and I should have said "deter harassment". You're on topic, but only insofar as "address" includes "enable".

If I understand correctly, your top priority here is protecting con staff, from the burden of receiving, investigating and suspending or dismissing false claims. Here's the sort of conversation which could ensue:

Con staff: "Hey Riley, someone told us you were annoying them. Do you know what that might be about?" Riley: "Nothing comes to mind. I have a hard time reading body language and facial expressions, though, so I'll ask a friend, to keep an eye out for anyone showing annoyance in my company, just in case. Or maybe it's that guy who was annoyed that I got first place in the glagtery contest, because he thought he should have won? Could be a grudge." Con staff: "Thanks, Riley, for a direct answer, and hurray for asking your friend to help. If we hear anything more specific, then we might have more questions for you later, but otherwise, game on and enjoy the con."

Con staff, reporting to con director: "I talked with Riley. He mentioned the glagtery contest. I'll check on whether the second place winner was also the person who filed the complaint. If so, the complaint is probably BS. I'll keep an eye on both of them, and if anyone *else* complains about Riley then I'll pursue further."

I do not share your strong interest and top priority on preventing that sort of conversation from happening at cons.

I am more interested in stopping strings of behaviors such Fannon's self-admitted behavior. According to his own statements he was sometimes merely annoying, and in other cases, escalated from there. People often misbehave in minor ways, whether they're intentionally testing the waters, or whether they're starting to form habits, which may, over a process of years, build up into misbehavior.

I've heard a third-party description of Fannon maintaining a Falstaff-style persona at cons, which in some cases went badly awry. That's consistent with his own descriptions of his behavior; it's consistent with his denials, and also consistent with his eventual apology. If Fannon's own descriptions are accurate, and if he could go back in time, then I'm confident he'd go back to 2014 or so, to some incident in which he merely *annoyed* someone with overzealous attention, and tell *himself* to nip it in the bud. Heck, at this point, what price would Fannon willingly pay, for the opportunity to stop himself at "annoying", so that he never reached "harassing"?

I can't imagine you, Bagpuss, reading what Fannon said, because then you would cede narrative control. For those who care, though, about what's *actually been a problem at cons*, a keyword search for "Sean Fannon apology" will find his final statement quickly enough (possibly after wading through his initial denials).

For what it's worth, I'm erring on the side of believing Fannon's apology more than his denials; and also erring on the side of taking the behaviors for which he apologizes, as the worst behavior he practiced. Maybe it wasn't that bad, maybe it was much worse, I don't know. In *any* scenario that's at all consistent with Fannon's apology, if cons had accepted complaints of annoying behavior, and investigated them directly, then that would not have caused a worse outcome, and IMO could have resulted in a much better outcome, for Fannon and for others. Particularly for the women whose gaming experience suffered from his leers, his overly-familiar compliments, and his intrusion into personal space (again, those are Fannon's descriptions of his own behavior).

Is there anyone who *hasn't* identified themselves as pro-harassment or an alt-right troll, who sees advantage in changing con policies, to allow annoying behavior, whether in forms such as sexual innuendo (if you know what I mean), or in forms such as placing large orders with sales booth staff, then cancelling just as it's time to pay? (A casual example, drawn from commentary among Correia fans. I'd bet my dice bag that at least one person at either Origins or GenCon will do that to the game company which Correia suggested as a legitimate target.)
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
I have always felt the most problematic aspect of the Drow was the "Evil matriarchy". The Drow do not look anything human. That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"

Me too. But that's easily said as a white woman from europe and I would rather see how black people think about the drow than to make a hasty judgment. (Especially if all other fairer-skinned elves lean towards the good alignments, so the "they are not human" argument only works so far.)

And yeah, Chaotic evil + *organized* society doesn't really match up. Yay for Eberron, I guess.

(Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against an evil matriarchy when there are several non-evil ones in your setting. And when some of the partiarchal systems are branded as evil as well. I have nothing against a flock of bad dark-skinned people when there are many examples of good-aligned, highly developed societies with dark skin. Heck, I have nothing against revealing, stripperific outfits as long as it isn't so obviously designed to cater to the male gaze alone. )
 

Bagpuss

Legend
I have always felt the most problematic aspect of the Drow was the "Evil matriarchy". The Drow do not look anything human. That said, the Drow also highlight my issues with the traditional D&D alignment system, the very notion of a Chaotic Evil Society make me go "Huh!"

Yeah but I suspect that depiction comes from the whole spider aspect of Drow, and the fact that a lot of female spiders are larger than the male, and will often eat the males before, after or even during an attempt to mate. Rather than being based on a human matriarchal society, or some attempt to be sexist.
 

Riley37

First Post
The above is a case of untreated mental illness, reinforced by an abusive upbringing with a completely helpless victim. While I see where you're going it's really off-point when discussing harassment in gaming.

So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.

Smith's attitude of "I'll toughen you up, like it or not, ready or not", is the same attitude which Jasper promotes. The difference isn't depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia; the difference is that Smith applied the principle (a) while "under the influence" (intoxicated) and (b) to a boy less than a year old. If Jasper brings that attitude to a con, and if that attitude influences con culture, then you tell me, KB: will that attitude correlate with more incidents of harassment at cons, or fewer incidents?

Hypothetical scenario: someone, with whatever incentive would suffice (eternal life? plus free pizza if it goes well?), hires you to bring an a 18-year-old, Daphne, to her first gaming con. She's pondering whether to sign up for game A or game B on Saturday afternoon. You overhear the DM of game A talking with his buddies about how snowflakes need to get over themselves, so his game is gonna push their comfort zones, with none of these wussy "content notices" or "trigger warnings", and make them into real men. Game B sounds like a generic "recover the Lost Orb of McGuffin" adventure. Do you assess Game A and Game B as equal risk of harassment for Daphne?

Keep in mind, free pizza, for life, for *eternal* life, is on the line. If Daphne turns to you for advice, then how actively would you recommend one game over the other?

Hypothetical variation: you overhear the DM of Game B saying something to HIS buddies, which is so scary, that it tilts you away from B, and causes you to recommend Game A. You tell me - what was it? What factor is *more* directly relevant to harassment risk, than the combination of machismo with overt disregard for boundaries?

Does anyone else have a suggestion, of what the DM of Game B could say, which seems more likely to end in harassment, than what the DM of Game A said?

Asking because I'm off to a gaming con this weekend, hoping to apply whatever I can learn from your posts in this thread. I've been to a few and it takes me effort to think of a B which is plausible and also still worse than that particular A.
 

Sadras

Legend
When was the last time someone mentioned how racist/xenopohic and patriarchal ALL the pale elves are?
That is why I never play an elf.
#HumanSupremacy FTW.
 

Jeanneliza

First Post
So you say. Are you a trained mental health professional, declaring a diagnosis; or can you offer a link to a diagnosis by a professional; or are you categorizing child homicide as mental illness, reflexively, without having any specific mental illness in mind? It's terrible, to face the reality that people do such things, with minds warped only by assumptions, emotions, and intoxicants, not by neurological malfunction. But it's better to face that reality, than flinch from it. "Eppur si muove." Check the statistics, if you like, on the correlation of mental diagnosis with homicide.

Smith's attitude of "I'll toughen you up, like it or not, ready or not", is the same attitude which Jasper promotes. The difference isn't depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia; the difference is that Smith applied the principle (a) while "under the influence" (intoxicated) and (b) to a boy less than a year old. If Jasper brings that attitude to a con, and if that attitude influences con culture, then you tell me, KB: will that attitude correlate with more incidents of harassment at cons, or fewer incidents?

Hypothetical scenario: someone, with whatever incentive would suffice (eternal life? plus free pizza if it goes well?), hires you to bring an a 18-year-old, Daphne, to her first gaming con. She's pondering whether to sign up for game A or game B on Saturday afternoon. You overhear the DM of game A talking with his buddies about how snowflakes need to get over themselves, so his game is gonna push their comfort zones, with none of these wussy "content notices" or "trigger warnings", and make them into real men. Game B sounds like a generic "recover the Lost Orb of McGuffin" adventure. Do you assess Game A and Game B as equal risk of harassment for Daphne?

Keep in mind, free pizza, for life, for *eternal* life, is on the line. If Daphne turns to you for advice, then how actively would you recommend one game over the other?

Hypothetical variation: you overhear the DM of Game B saying something to HIS buddies, which is so scary, that it tilts you away from B, and causes you to recommend Game A. You tell me - what was it? What factor is *more* directly relevant to harassment risk, than the combination of machismo with overt disregard for boundaries?

Does anyone else have a suggestion, of what the DM of Game B could say, which seems more likely to end in harassment, than what the DM of Game A said?

Asking because I'm off to a gaming con this weekend, hoping to apply whatever I can learn from your posts in this thread. I've been to a few and it takes me effort to think of a B which is plausible and also still worse than that particular A.
"Special prize to any to any of you guys who manage to "score" with one of the chicks in the game." If you wanted something even more alarming than the first example.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Me too. But that's easily said as a white woman from europe and I would rather see how black people think about the drow than to make a hasty judgment. (Especially if all other fairer-skinned elves lean towards the good alignments, so the "they are not human" argument only works so far.)
I guess you are right but the gray tones and highlights of the Drow artwork I have seen signaled non human to me more so than the paler elves.



(Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against an evil matriarchy when there are several non-evil ones in your setting. And when some of the partiarchal systems are branded as evil as well. I have nothing against a flock of bad dark-skinned people when there are many examples of good-aligned, highly developed societies with dark skin. Heck, I have nothing against revealing, stripperific outfits as long as it isn't so obviously designed to cater to the male gaze alone. )

Well the stripperific clothes never bothered me :D, being the target audience and all, but boob armour, or obvious gaps in armour and high heels on wilderness or warrior types can really set me off on a rant.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top