Barred From Octocon
This morning I received this email:
Hello,
I'm writing on behalf of the 2009 Octocon Committee. I am the Co-Chair.
Due to your behaviour at the convention some time ago and your online behaviour earlier this year we have come to the unfortunate decision to ban you from this convention. We believe that your attitude towards us has been far to aggressive both online and in the past at the convention.
This matter is not open for discussion and we will not enter into any online discussion regarding this nor will we discuss this with any other persons. This decision is final.
We are deeply saddened by this as this is the first time a committee has had to ban someone. We will of course will refund your money; if you reply to me with your address I will forward this onto you as soon as possible.
Regards,
Nichola Hannigan
I have absolutely no idea what 'your behaviour at the convention some time ago' refers to, although natural20 seems to think it was something in 2007 in his recent post about this. I genuinely welcome any further enlightenment.
However, I've just seen that James Brophy has commented on this post on Cheryl Morgan's blog, making some very specific accusations. Certainly I have been critical of Octocon in past years, as a perusal of the entries under the Octocon tag will show you, but I'm pretty sure that I'm entitled to have an opinion, and have always backed up what I've said. This year I was critical of the lack of any information about the con committee on their website, or indeed anywhere else. I also wanted to know if they were going to put up an online membership list. And that's about all I can think of.
The bald truth is, Octocon has been going to hell in a handbasket for the past several years, and I'm apparently being barred for actually saying so. I believe in openess, and transparancy, and accountability, and trying to actually run the damn con right, and I'll speak up when I think that these are being eroded. I may have been critical, but I don't think it was ever unwarranted, and indeed there were times when I held my tongue about some of the *really* bad stuff, like the time it took well over a year to get the funds for a charity auction held at the con, or.. oh, there are other things, but you'll have to ask me in private!
Hello,
I'm writing on behalf of the 2009 Octocon Committee. I am the Co-Chair.
Due to your behaviour at the convention some time ago and your online behaviour earlier this year we have come to the unfortunate decision to ban you from this convention. We believe that your attitude towards us has been far to aggressive both online and in the past at the convention.
This matter is not open for discussion and we will not enter into any online discussion regarding this nor will we discuss this with any other persons. This decision is final.
We are deeply saddened by this as this is the first time a committee has had to ban someone. We will of course will refund your money; if you reply to me with your address I will forward this onto you as soon as possible.
Regards,
Nichola Hannigan
I have absolutely no idea what 'your behaviour at the convention some time ago' refers to, although natural20 seems to think it was something in 2007 in his recent post about this. I genuinely welcome any further enlightenment.
However, I've just seen that James Brophy has commented on this post on Cheryl Morgan's blog, making some very specific accusations. Certainly I have been critical of Octocon in past years, as a perusal of the entries under the Octocon tag will show you, but I'm pretty sure that I'm entitled to have an opinion, and have always backed up what I've said. This year I was critical of the lack of any information about the con committee on their website, or indeed anywhere else. I also wanted to know if they were going to put up an online membership list. And that's about all I can think of.
The bald truth is, Octocon has been going to hell in a handbasket for the past several years, and I'm apparently being barred for actually saying so. I believe in openess, and transparancy, and accountability, and trying to actually run the damn con right, and I'll speak up when I think that these are being eroded. I may have been critical, but I don't think it was ever unwarranted, and indeed there were times when I held my tongue about some of the *really* bad stuff, like the time it took well over a year to get the funds for a charity auction held at the con, or.. oh, there are other things, but you'll have to ask me in private!