ang_rosin: (Default)
ang_rosin ([personal profile] ang_rosin) wrote2009-10-06 06:39 pm
Entry tags:

OH. DRAMA.

[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 [livejournal.com profile] 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.

[identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 06:18 pm (UTC)(link)
I am perhaps a little naive.

[identity profile] hawkida.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] sneerpout.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 06:40 pm (UTC)(link)
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).

[identity profile] evil-mogwai.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 06:55 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] nalsa.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] swisstone.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 07:29 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] bohemiancoast.livejournal.com 2009-10-06 08:41 pm (UTC)(link)
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.
Edited 2009-10-06 20:43 (UTC)

[identity profile] angriest.livejournal.com 2009-10-07 01:22 am (UTC)(link)
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.