(no subject)
I've been not commenting on the *big Swancon issue* for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that I will be attending Swancon only briefly this year, and didn't want to be seen to be pontificating about an event I will largely not be attending. There are other reasons too.
But now that it has publicly exploded, there are things I want to say.
First, this is not about excluding those who have done bad things from Swancon. The community has a right to expect event organisers to look after its safety and enjoyment of events, and that certainly should include the right to exclude those with a past history of disrupting or threatening the event itself, but it cannot, and should not, be trying to exclude all those with a past history of committing offences *outside* Swancon. Swancon has had attendees in the past with a personal history including some serious crimes, I know of at least one convicted child sex offender who was a regular attendee (though I haven't seen them for some years), and there are almost certainly others that I don't know about (which is just as it should be, convicted criminals have a right to privacy too). And as far as I am concerned, if they did nothing that threatened the safety or enjoyment of our members, they were welcome to be members too.
The relevant issue *for the organisers* is not their past actions or general creepiness, but how it effects the event for others. Leaving aside that compassion for peoples past mistakes, even terrible mistakes, can be a commendable virtue if done correctly, it is not the place of event/community organisers (which has included me in the past, and probably will again) to attempt to ensure the worthiness of attendees, only their safety and their enjoyment of the event. I would like it if all Swancon attendees were good people, or nice people, or people who had never done anything seriously wrong -- but when it comes down to it, it's a science fiction convention not a gathering of my friends, and sometimes bad, creepy, or horrible people also are really interested in science fiction, some of them even have interesting things to say about it, or are writers, or publishers, even potential (or previous) guests of the convention. Trying to make Swancon 'creep free' is not only not something we could achieve, but would also be the start down a pretty undesirable road. Another part of the issue is that public institutions like WASFF/Swancon are not simply private events, and judgements that seem simply in private life become deeply problematic to institutions, in part because we hold them to different standards. There is some nuance here (there is a difference between allowing someone dubious to be a member and making them a guest, for example) but the principle is that Swancon/WASFF should not be policing its members past or behaviour outside the convention, though of course it should legitimately attempt to ensure all members behave appropriately at the convention, by expulsion if necessary.
But the current issue is very different. It is not primarily about judging the offender, it is about the rights of the victim. When we have to choose between the safety and enjoyment of the convention by the victim, or the offender, we should choose the victim every time. When someones history means they clearly do threaten the safety or enjoyment of the event for other members, it is appropriate for the community to do something. We have a legal mechanism to deal with situations similar to this one (a restraining order), and even though that mechanism didn't come into play here, the principle is the same. We should not police our members per se, but we should protect the rights of our members to enjoy the event, and when that conflicts with the rights of others we should support the wronged party, not the offender.
There is another issue here, though. The community is not the event. Being a member is not the same as being welcome or accepted. Allowing someone to attend the event isn't the same as welcoming them into the community. A lot of the convention experience isn't in public space, and/or isn't official. Room parties, going out to dinner, even having a conversation with your friends -- we can, and should, be able to choose who we interact with in these settings. The Geek Social Fallacy #1 is that Ostracizers are Evil -- and it is a fallacy, exercising choice in who you choose to interact with, even in the setting of a large community event, is not evil, it is empowering. And we can do so however we like. Personally, there are people at Swancon, or other conventions, who I grudgingly accept as part of the Swancon community, but get at best basic politeness, and sometimes active shunning. Some are even clearly active, valued, members of the community, that I happen to dislike. There are other people at Swancon who I will cheerfully interact with as part of a public event, but I would not choose to interact with in a more intimate setting of a party or dinner group. What crankynick advocated was how I would more or less expect many people to respond -- as a close friend of the victim here it was certainly already how I was going to treat the guy -- but was remarkable, not in what it called on us to do, but that it called for us to do it as a community based on the situation not just our personal relationships. I'd been groping towards a solution that did not force the organisation into becoming an actively exclusionist one, but still got the right result, and succeeded only in conflicting myself, and crankynick cut the Gordian knot and found a way forward, and I think we all owe him some thanks.
In short, I think WASFF should be allowing people to become members without making judgements on their pasts, except when that members rights come into direct conflict with others (and even then, it may not always fall to WASFF to make the call). But that does not mean that we should welcome anyone into our community as a friend.
But now that it has publicly exploded, there are things I want to say.
First, this is not about excluding those who have done bad things from Swancon. The community has a right to expect event organisers to look after its safety and enjoyment of events, and that certainly should include the right to exclude those with a past history of disrupting or threatening the event itself, but it cannot, and should not, be trying to exclude all those with a past history of committing offences *outside* Swancon. Swancon has had attendees in the past with a personal history including some serious crimes, I know of at least one convicted child sex offender who was a regular attendee (though I haven't seen them for some years), and there are almost certainly others that I don't know about (which is just as it should be, convicted criminals have a right to privacy too). And as far as I am concerned, if they did nothing that threatened the safety or enjoyment of our members, they were welcome to be members too.
The relevant issue *for the organisers* is not their past actions or general creepiness, but how it effects the event for others. Leaving aside that compassion for peoples past mistakes, even terrible mistakes, can be a commendable virtue if done correctly, it is not the place of event/community organisers (which has included me in the past, and probably will again) to attempt to ensure the worthiness of attendees, only their safety and their enjoyment of the event. I would like it if all Swancon attendees were good people, or nice people, or people who had never done anything seriously wrong -- but when it comes down to it, it's a science fiction convention not a gathering of my friends, and sometimes bad, creepy, or horrible people also are really interested in science fiction, some of them even have interesting things to say about it, or are writers, or publishers, even potential (or previous) guests of the convention. Trying to make Swancon 'creep free' is not only not something we could achieve, but would also be the start down a pretty undesirable road. Another part of the issue is that public institutions like WASFF/Swancon are not simply private events, and judgements that seem simply in private life become deeply problematic to institutions, in part because we hold them to different standards. There is some nuance here (there is a difference between allowing someone dubious to be a member and making them a guest, for example) but the principle is that Swancon/WASFF should not be policing its members past or behaviour outside the convention, though of course it should legitimately attempt to ensure all members behave appropriately at the convention, by expulsion if necessary.
But the current issue is very different. It is not primarily about judging the offender, it is about the rights of the victim. When we have to choose between the safety and enjoyment of the convention by the victim, or the offender, we should choose the victim every time. When someones history means they clearly do threaten the safety or enjoyment of the event for other members, it is appropriate for the community to do something. We have a legal mechanism to deal with situations similar to this one (a restraining order), and even though that mechanism didn't come into play here, the principle is the same. We should not police our members per se, but we should protect the rights of our members to enjoy the event, and when that conflicts with the rights of others we should support the wronged party, not the offender.
There is another issue here, though. The community is not the event. Being a member is not the same as being welcome or accepted. Allowing someone to attend the event isn't the same as welcoming them into the community. A lot of the convention experience isn't in public space, and/or isn't official. Room parties, going out to dinner, even having a conversation with your friends -- we can, and should, be able to choose who we interact with in these settings. The Geek Social Fallacy #1 is that Ostracizers are Evil -- and it is a fallacy, exercising choice in who you choose to interact with, even in the setting of a large community event, is not evil, it is empowering. And we can do so however we like. Personally, there are people at Swancon, or other conventions, who I grudgingly accept as part of the Swancon community, but get at best basic politeness, and sometimes active shunning. Some are even clearly active, valued, members of the community, that I happen to dislike. There are other people at Swancon who I will cheerfully interact with as part of a public event, but I would not choose to interact with in a more intimate setting of a party or dinner group. What crankynick advocated was how I would more or less expect many people to respond -- as a close friend of the victim here it was certainly already how I was going to treat the guy -- but was remarkable, not in what it called on us to do, but that it called for us to do it as a community based on the situation not just our personal relationships. I'd been groping towards a solution that did not force the organisation into becoming an actively exclusionist one, but still got the right result, and succeeded only in conflicting myself, and crankynick cut the Gordian knot and found a way forward, and I think we all owe him some thanks.
In short, I think WASFF should be allowing people to become members without making judgements on their pasts, except when that members rights come into direct conflict with others (and even then, it may not always fall to WASFF to make the call). But that does not mean that we should welcome anyone into our community as a friend.