Oh for fuck's sake.

[rmd]

I'd always meant to get around to finally making it to a Readercon. But fuck that noise unless the board seriously unfucks this situation

ETA: I've never been higher in a con hierarchy than regular staff, but I'm wondering if it might be useful or at least amusing to try and organize a feminist-friend con scheduled against Readercon next year.

Comments

[gingicat]

Or at least a con scheduled during the summer that actually DOES have a zero-tolerance policy.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think that scheduling it directly across from Readercon would be a much better statement than merely having a con at all.

Not just "fuck this", but "fuck you".

[donnad.livejournal.com]

Remember, it's not the con itself, it's the people who wrote the policy and are charged with upholding the policy and failed in their duty. And from what I understand several of them have already resigned over this.

Perhaps the thing to do is to put people on the BoD with integrity.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Yep. That would fall under the category of "unfucking the situation".

Hopefully, this will, in fact, get fixed in a way that makes readercon a better con, overall.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm not awake yet ths morning, I wrote all of that sort of backwards.

Perhaps they should put people WITH INTEGRITY on the BoD in the future. Not biased, "Oh he's my friend, (A BNF, A SMOF)we can't do that to him." people.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

Their zero-tolerance policy is in fact part of the problem. I have no interest in any con I attend adopting one. Mandatory sentencing puts all parties in a bad position.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yeah.

[metagnat.livejournal.com]

I would definitely consider attending that instead of readercon. I'd love for there to be feminist con in the greater Camberville area. And Readercon (though I do love it) often kind of fails at feminist and in other identity politics areas, due to being more than half full of old white dudes with unexamined privilege.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

I haven't been to a con in years, but I'd be so very into a feminist con, or really any con that isn't "more than half full of old white dudes with unexamined privilege".

Rant mode on: the first and always biggest attraction of SF for me has always been its depiction of worlds where people like me might live and not be marginalized, patronized, victimized, or oppressed in that this-is-the-law-of-the-universe way. I got enough of that in the real world; I didn't need it in my fiction, too. Escapism? Yeah, at moments it has been (although I prefer to think of it as a vacation). But those books also presented a different vision that changed the way I see the world, and that changed my life. It's much harder to oppress people who know that it doesn't have to be this way. We can't prevent people from using the genre as the vehicle for their isms, but we can make a space where SF can be what it was meant to be.

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

I also had always meant to get around to going to Readercon, and I've pretty much written it off in the wake of this thing.

And SIGN ME UP for a feministish con -- including organizing! -- next summer.

[metagnat.livejournal.com]

I've never organized or helped to organize a con, but I would be in if there'd be something I'm capable of.

[metagnat.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me it might be better to have it on a weekend that doesn't conflict, and offer discounted memberships to anyone who is going to Readercon. It'd be like saying: Hey, you want to educate yourself? We got your education.

We could even give out "cookie awards" for people getting it right, in the fandom community.

[tb]

I've found out a bit more about how things are organized at Readercon. The BoD is not the ConCom. If you know rosefox, she's one of the many people who are really unhappy with what's gone down (to put it mildly) and is working with the rest of the ConCom to overturn the BoD's decision. She might be a good person to talk to about organizing a feminist con (though not right now; this thing has pretty much overwhelmed her).

[metagnat.livejournal.com]

I read her post about the mess and I'm sure it's really stressful for her. It definitely seems like almost everyone who is involved with the con is totally on the side of safety.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Yeah. BoD != ConCom. I think I only know one person on the BoD, but I know several on the ConCom.

I've been watching stuff online about this, including from rosefox. I don't know if I'm serious about "hey, let's move the cow out of the barn and put on a show con," but I'm not even figuring that out until this is all settled down.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Not wanting to seem clueless... but being clueless here... Could you flesh out what you are objecting to, or rather, what you desire as an alternative? And the comments don't seem to all point in the same direction.

As far as I can tell, this fellow violated the harassment policy, and has been banned for a minimum of two years. That seems to be consistent with a "zero-tolerance policy" -- "You do the crime, you do the time".

[joev.livejournal.com]

http://www.readercon.org/information.htm#harassment
>>>>
Readercon has always had a zero-tolerance harassment policy.

Harassment of any kind — including physical assault, battery, deliberate intimidation, stalking, or unwelcome physical attentions — will not be tolerated at Readercon and will result in permanent suspension of membership.

As always, Readercon reserves the right to strip membership at its discretion.
<<<<

The natural reading of "permanent suspension of membership" is in agreement with what they did the last time this policy was enforced -- ban the offender for life. This time, they did not follow their stated policy. As is clear from reading their statement at http://readercon.livejournal.com/21805.html , they felt the harassment was undisputed, but that an exception to the policy was warranted based on this offender understanding what he did wrong and showing regret for it.

Sometimes surprising situations come up that show flaws in written policies, requiring exceptions and rewrites. I would hope that an offender apologizing for his actions is not such a huge surprise -- it happens all the time, for offenses large and small.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

When it was Aaron Agassi, they perma-banned him. When it's a guy who's a well-known fan (arisia fan GOH, for instance) who ignored repeated very unambiguous responses from the woman in question but who said he's really sorry, well, they'll just tell him to come back in a couple of years.

Some animals are more equal than others.

By changing the policy after the fact for people they like, they've established that their policy is not actually 'zero tolerance against harassment' but 'well, we'll arbitrarily make a decision regardless of what we've claimed, particularly if the person says "whups! sorry!" and we're sure it's just a misunderstanding.'

Furthermore, and also infuriatingly, their overall response seems to indicate that they are ignorant of the real facts of sexual harassment and harassment in general. It's not only done by mentally ill strangers, but by people who are able to manipulate the people enforcing the policies as well as people they're trying to harass. Sort of like how abusive significant others can be some of the most charming folks...sometimes.

In some ways, it's the Penn State situation writ very very small.

[clauclauclaudia]

For fuller context, http://glvalentine.livejournal.com/341417.html -- and if you really want to dig in, use her "readercon" journal tag.

[lioritgioret.livejournal.com]

Hello, I have a stupid semantic question. Sorry to bother you but I want to be able to follow this intelligently.
Is "zero tolerance" always identical with "permanent suspension of membership"? (I recognize that both phrases appear in the ReaderCon policy that pertained at the time of the incident this year, so they're both in play here.) But is "zero tolerance" generally mandatory "sentencing," or is it just mandatory "arrest"? Because I actually don't think "zero tolerance" is a bad policy -- if there is harassment, something should be done about it, first time, every time.

So, anyway -- is "zero tolerance" generally taken to mean "permanent expulsion"?
Thanks.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

It varies. I think in general it's "something should be done" but can optionally be "something should be done and that thing should be banishment", but in this case, it was a "one strike and you're out"

[tb]

My take on it is that "zero tolerance" has indeed become shorthand for mandatory "one strike and you're out" policies. I'd prefer it to mean what it says, as I personally have zero tolerance for harassment or for selective rule-enforcement based on cronyism.

Another point that seems to be confusing people is that banning someone from a con is not be about punishing the offender but about preserving the convention (just like the calls for the BoD to resign). The criminal justice arrest-sentencing model really falls short here. (Not picking on you for using it, more trying to call out pervasive context I think is inaccurate.)

[lioritgioret.livejournal.com]

Thank you for both clarifications.
If banning the offender is about preserving the (safety of) the convention, it really does call for stepping away from the criminal justice analogy and looking at it more from a community-of-purpose perspective.
Thanks again.

[tb]

You're welcome. And I recognize that my phrasing about "preserving the convention" is awkward, but I haven't quite figured out how to express what I mean. It's not just about safety (a word/concept I have my own difficulties with). It's more about the con as an abstract that includes individual members, their interactions, and the environment. Community-of-purpose is good.