Scott & Rachel’s Party Policies

Jul 08, 2014 00:48

Please read all of this. We welcome your questions and comments ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

rosefox July 8 2014, 06:12:34 UTC
Thank you for the update!

I have some experience with creating codes of conduct, so if you're thinking of formalizing something like that for your parties, let me know and I'd be glad to help you with it.

Reply

sunspiral July 8 2014, 21:31:27 UTC
We do appreciate the offer but per the addendum above, feel that a code of conduct is not something we need for a private party. Hope to see you here at future events!

Reply

mzrowan July 8 2014, 22:56:16 UTC
But you *already have* a code of conduct. That's what this post *is* (along with the other rules and guidelines that are included in your invitations).

It just feels a trifle one-sided. Maybe also add, "Don't conduct illegal activities at our parties. That includes attending the party at all if someone you reasonably expect to be there has a restraining order out against you."

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 01:46:41 UTC
It may be an issue of semantics, but I've always regarded a code of conduct as a much more extensive and formal document. And while our list of party rules has unfortunately had to grow over the years, I still think it's nowhere near a code of conduct.

Prior to this incident, our model for how to deal with restraining orders was simply to keep the people involved from being at the party simultaneously.

Reply

rosefox July 9 2014, 01:53:03 UTC
A code of conduct can be as simple as "Be excellent to each other". Policies and procedures for dealing with code of conduct violations might be more extensive but don't have to be.

This post is already much more extensive and formal than Readercon's code of conduct, to give the example with which I am most familiar.

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 14:01:15 UTC
So wait, your policy is to treat the people on either end of a restraining order as equally valued guests?

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 14:06:50 UTC
Historically, that's what we've done. And in the past these guests have always worked it out as to who was going to be at any given event.

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 14:09:27 UTC
So not only do you treat the both sides equally, you require that the person who is being protected communicate and negotiate with the person they're being protected from? Even though a total lack of communication may be part of the protection they need?

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 14:15:52 UTC
We never required anything - the people involved in the previous restraining order situation approached us independently and each let us know that through whatever intermediaries they were using, they had negotiated who would be attending. We hadn't asked them to do this - they'd decided to handle it that way. Thus, that was the default model we had for dealing with restraining orders.

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 14:16:39 UTC
Are you considering changing that model now?

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 14:27:01 UTC
Yes, in light of the current situation, we clearly need to change the model. Would you be interested in discussing this offline?

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 19:48:14 UTC
I don't see any reason for this discussion to not be public ( ... )

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 20:16:01 UTC
As a host, I see a clear difference between the two issues here. A restraining order becomes a potential logistical headache for the hosts, especially if the people involved can't or won't take turns attending events. Running a party with 200+ attendees is hard enough without this added challenge. And frankly, I hate making rules. On the other hand, I perceive someone threatening to bring the police to my house as creating a direct threat to me and my household. The key difference is that the former is about other people, and the latter is about me and mine.

From previous experience, we expected people involved in a restraining order situation to behave like responsible adults. Clearly that wasn't what happened in this case. You've made a couple of good suggestions and clearly roozle and I will have to figure out what our next move is with this issue.

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 20:45:24 UTC
I think that if a court has seen fit to specifically restrict someone's behaviour on pain of arrest, then it's safe to work on the presumption that they're not acting like a reasonable adult, particularly in regards to the person who needed the restraining order. In fact, a default expectation otherwise seems illogical.

Reply

sunspiral July 9 2014, 21:05:09 UTC
Then we may have just been exceptionally lucky in the past.

Reply

mzrowan July 9 2014, 20:47:58 UTC
Also, I'll point out that my first suggestion creates no overhead at all for you or roozle.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up