Oct. 6th, 2009 06:39 pm
OH. DRAMA.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
[Poll #1467311]
I've been to Octocon. I was lucky to get there in 2006 and meet Frank Darcy who I'd only really known online before then. It was an interesting experience and one that I'd like to repeat, but possibly not right at this moment.
Badly Done, as they say.
EDIT: Auntie Ang says: Remember, you can't kill everyone.
EDIT2: I'm linking to the joint statement published on
slovobooks blog about the matter here for completeness. What I will say that this poll was always about confirming how I believed most fans I knew would behave in similar circumstances.
I've been to Octocon. I was lucky to get there in 2006 and meet Frank Darcy who I'd only really known online before then. It was an interesting experience and one that I'd like to repeat, but possibly not right at this moment.
Badly Done, as they say.
EDIT: Auntie Ang says: Remember, you can't kill everyone.
EDIT2: I'm linking to the joint statement published on
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I do have people I trust to tell these things to but they are also people I would expect to explain to me a) what I'd done wrong and b) why I can't go back there. If it is justified, that is. If unjustified I'd expect them to tell me to kick up hell.
no subject
From my reading of Tony's comment (which could be wrong) I think he, and you, see some sort of a difference between posting to a restricted number of people on the internet, and moaning about it among people at the pub. To me they're largely the same with one major exception - the talking in person down the pub can be misreported easily with nobody able to actually prove that "No, what I ACTUALLY said is [whatever]" whilst you have more comeback if it's in writing to be reviewed.
no subject
no subject
If I were on the receiving end of something like this, my reaction would depend on whether I felt aggrieved or not. Had I gone to a convention, thrown up on one of the committee, punched another and then made a hideous drunken pass at the GoH, I would expect a "we don't want you back" message, receive it with whatever grace I had left, keep very, very quiet about it, and hope the committee would do the same.
If, as seems to be the case here on the evidence so far, I was banned because of thin skins and/or irrevocable personality clashes and genuinely felt hard done-by, I would probably go "public" (using Max's definition above, ie probably under a lock).
no subject
The problem with putting something on the internet, even under a lock, is that fandom is full of well-meaning friends who may well take up your cause. Which is fine if you feel badly done to but not so great when everyone finds out what really did happen to the trouser press.
no subject
If I felt righteously aggrieved, the decision to post under a friends lock would be a fairly passive-aggressive one, if I'm being honest. Unless it was to a small filter and I explicitly asked those on it to keep quiet about it. If I posted to the whole FL, it could only be because I wanted other people to make a stink about it on my my behalf. So perhaps a public post would be preferable - at least that way, I would avoid accusations of being manipulative and secretive.
This is all conjecture of course. I have no plans to behave in a vomitous, aggressive, lecherous way at any convention I attend.
Although I will be steering clear of the trouser presses.
EDIT: Just to clarify, because this is an ongoing drama, my example in this comment and the one above is fictitious and exaggerated for (very lame) comedic effect, and I am not suggesting that anyone involved in the current drama did anything even remotely resembling this, because who would? This should be obvious, given that no reason for the banning has emerged from the committee in question, but here it is for the record anyway.
no subject
You're just no fun any more.
no subject
no subject
Yes, but you'd also be so contrite and apologetic about it all that the committee would forgive you and you'd be let back.
Besides, if the GoH was China Mieville, he was asking for it anyway ...
no subject
As for the forgiveness, well, it depends. Like many people who have been around fandom for a long time, I have acquired a few people who be quite happy if I fell off the face of the earth. I like to think that they are in the minority, however.
Psst. Nobody fancies China Mieville. We've been over this.
no subject
Yeah, that's why question 1 is so hard to answer. Because of the way we'd react after doing something worth being banned for, we wouldn't do it in the first place - if we were the sort of people who would do that, then we'd react differently to being banned.
I like to think that they are in the minority, however.
They're certainly Wrong. And not welcome round my place.
no subject
no subject
A Church Party used to be held at the pastors house every new years eve.
One of the youth leaders (the pastors son) let it be known that it would be at his house this year.
I was told by Mum (I was 17 at the time) to ring and offer to bring something and did so to only be rung back by the pastors son and told "Your not invited." Everyone else -including the other youth leader who had offered me a lift there - had no idea that the guest list was 'restricted'.
So I rang the other youth leader, one of my good friends and a couple of the other older youth group members and told them... it didn't exactly make the pastors son popular.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I have to say, though, that if we banned everyone in UK fandom who allegedly shouted, screamed, insulted attendees and guests and bullied we'd lose a lot of attendees and possibly a few GOHs.
no subject
2 is easy. If I think someone is enough of a dick that I want to ban them from the convention, I have to assume that they're enough of a dick not to take that lying down.
no subject
no subject
Plus also, it's unbelievably lame to take someone's money for a supporting membership, and then months later, when he decides he can get to the con to see old friends after all, decide to ban him. That's actively revolting behaviour.
no subject
That doesn't excuse her failure to provide a reason for the ban, or here naivety in assuming that it could be kept quiet.
no subject
The committee member who followed up on Person 1's comments gave the impression, to me, of throwing Person 1 to the wolves.
Gary Farber gave them some great advice - eat humble pie, move on, and in six months it's the punchline to a bad joke and, in a year, it's forgotten. And he's someone who's been on the receiving end of a very rough ride from fandom, so he knows what he's talking about.
no subject
no subject
From my POV though, based on my experience running conventions, the committee have handled this shockingly badly. If you feel the need to ban someone you need to give a pretty specific reason.