Well, I know you’re implying that I have some desperate wish to harrass, but, in truth, “Why it is” is because I’ve seen shitty policies ruin events. I’ve been on the boards of a few different organizations, and have seen well meaning but misguided attempts at rules like this. And seeing them gain traction among folk on here is disheartening. I’ve no particular interest in the rules at this con. I’m not attending it, am in fact thousands of miles from it. I’m betting most the folk on this board are in a similar boat. So, it’s not the rules of this particular con that are at issue, rather the general trend of rules and general expectations.
Oh yay, look, more stereotyping! Object to terrible policies that seem designed to generate false positives, and you’re an MRA neck-beard. For one, I’m a chinbeard, thanks much. Neck hair drives me nuts. For two, objecting to people being stereotyped and subjected to punishment because of a stereotype is, at least in my view, objectively good. Now, perhaps from time to time, you’d prefer to discriminate on the fun stereotype. Well, too bad. What’s your stance when a white female con-goer feels threatened merely by the presence of a large black con-goer? Completely inappropriate right? So, why is it OK if you change the color of the skin of the guy? Err on the side of kicking out then?
This one is simple. “Please sir, may we see the pictures that you have taken with your camera?” “No”. That’s not a “request” I’ll honor, pretty much ever, and never under duress. Go check out some camera sites, or better yet “Photographyisnotacirme.com”. No photog worth his salt will submit his or her photos for review by outside parties, and especially not authorities, as a matter of principle. What you describe there is more or less a form of censorship. I know most of you on this board might not think so, but that’s because you’re not familiar with the issues of prior review.
Well, I generally don’t think it’s required to provide a different plan just to be able to point out the flaws of an existing one, but, Sure, why the hell not.
Trash the whole thing, then start from the basis of what policies are really NECESSARY. Unnecessary rules and regulations are simply a tool of someone with an authoritarian mindset.
Do you need rules against Assault and Battery, or up-skirt photos or blatant harassment or really the bulk of the obvious items raised in this thread? No, you do not, and here’s why: Those are CRIMES. You don’t have to make rules against them for your con, society already has. If those things happen, you call the police, and, further attendance at your con by that person is the least of their worries. They won’t be able to attend in the short term at a minimum, because they will be in custody. And if it’s a real concern they’ll be back, you take their credentials and if you’re really worried, simply refund their money, while barring them from any further event. Why refund the money? Well, is it really worth $50 to fight that fight? If you refuse service and refund the money, why doesn’t even enter into it.
So, the only set of circumstances where any policy is useful are in areas where the activity isn’t at all a crime, or where the conduct/evidence is so borderline that the police won’t act on it. And since we’ve seen what “evidence” it takes for police to reject even detaining someone, that’d be scant evidence indeed. And if those are areas in which you need some policy, I think a long, hard look at the WHY is in order.
But, say you assume it’s for something legitimate. You STILL don’t need a Zero Tolerance policy, just a general restriction, with actual thinking and judgement behind it’s application.
Keep in mind, Con admins can block anyone from a con, up to and including that they just don’t like that person’s face. But, if they want to ask someone to leave for no reason, they’ll likely have to give them their money back. And thats what this gets to. Being able to remove “undesirables” for no articulable or provable reason, with no recourse or even a refund for them. That’s all fine and dandy when the “undesirable” it removes are people you’ve already decided are Evil. But those same policies can be turned against anyone. Bad policies are bad policies, even if they don’t happen to be goring your ox at this particular moment. Once you enable them, you normalize it, and then when it perverts into something that doesn’t happen to serve the interest of the day, it’s too damn late.
