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

[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.