OH. DRAMA.

[ang_rosin]

[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.

Comments

[bugshaw.livejournal.com]

I am perhaps a little naive.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Ah, but you would probably cite a specific reason and make sure it was a bloody good one.

[bugshaw.livejournal.com]

Also, the rest of my committee would say "Hang on, what happens when they post about this on the Internet?"

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

In answer to the first question, it depends what you mean by "publish on the internet". While technically I know that what I'm doing right now is publishing on the internet, I don't see putting a post on lj, most likely friendslocked, about it as doing so, and that would most likely be my actual reaction.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

I do, you see. See reply to sneerpout below re: well-meaning friends.

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.

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

See, this is HOW I would quite likely be telling those people I trusted.

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.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

Exactly. You're spot on. In situations like this the rumour mill tends to go into overdrive so perhaps it is best to do one's refuting or alleging in print, within reason. I still have some faith in the locked post to a heavily-restricted filter.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. The committee have handled - and are handling - this very badly indeed, that's clear.

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).

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Well, I've no idea why the ban is in place because the committee haven't given a specific reason, but, yes, if I knew I deserved it I would keep quiet. Possibly tell one or two fans I knew I could trust who would cover for me.

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.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

Succinctly put. (How do you know about the trouser press incident?)

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.

[reverendjim.livejournal.com]

I have no plans to behave in a vomitous, aggressive, lecherous way at any convention I attend.

You're just no fun any more.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

:o)

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

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.

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 ...

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

If I had done anything like that, there would be no need to ban me, given that I would already have faked my own death and have moved to St Kilda to raise chickens.

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.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

If I had done anything like that, there would be no need to ban me, given that I would already have faked my own death and have moved to St Kilda to raise chickens.

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.

[cdave]

The other difference is, if I'd been banned from any event it's not that big a deal. I've not been going to these things for that long. But if it was one that I used to be on the committee on, and was a regular attendee off, it could well be a different matter.

[evil-mogwai.livejournal.com]

I had a similar event New Years 1999.

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.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

[nalsa.livejournal.com]

I'm not likely to attend such a con (because I'm lazy and, hey, I failed to make Eastercon when it was in my back yard), but I've been reading and thinking a bit about this today. If I'd made an arse of myself - and it's very easy to do that at cons - then fair enough. But expulsion without charge? Yes, I'd say something about it, especially with the "we will not discuss this with you, ever" fingers-in-ears attitude from the panel.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

I think the initial communication was badly handled. As we don't know why the committee have banned him we can't tell what sort of arsishness has merited the ban, and if it was arsish enough.

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.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about 1. If it was me, I might not go public (but would moan to everyone down the pub) - but then I'm not sure I'm the sort of person whose behaviour might mean that some people would ban me. If I was, I'd probably be more likely to scream it from the rooftops.

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.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly. If you want something kept private you can only do that with the agreement of all parties, and if you want agreement you should at least provide a credible and honest reason. As I always say, never say something behind someone's back that you're not prepared to hear someone else repeat to their face.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I particularly love the way the committee are saying "huh, why'd he have to moan on the internet, he could have written to us", when the letter they sent him explicitly told him they wouldn't discuss it. Oops.

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.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

In fairness, the person saying that he should have written to the committee was talking out of a part of his anatomy not usually associated with verbal communication, and the Octocon co-chair has disassociated herself and the Octocon committee from that.

That doesn't excuse her failure to provide a reason for the ban, or here naivety in assuming that it could be kept quiet.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

If anything, it's made it worse. The first person you are referring to didn't clarify matters at all, made some serious allegations, and then backtracked swiftly.

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.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Yes. But the person in question has only *just* resigned from the committee, presumably over this. Not a happy committee or convention.

[angriest.livejournal.com]

I can't comment on the specifics of this case - I've read about it, but then I don't know the people involved and have attended one convention in my life outside of Western Australia.

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.