What would

[james_davis_nicoll]

A Readercon done right look like?

Comments

[daev.livejournal.com]

I think the 2 of you are in violent agreement, except for the reading of "orthogonal". I take it to mean "something which can be changed without changes to everything else." (Not "irrelevant" or "unimportant.")

On the whole it's clear their security policy needs fixing (kick the bastard out immediately and don't let him come back), but that doesn't mean their programming choices, hotel, room parties, panels, etc. have anything wrong with them. It seemed like an odd choice of phrasing from James ... I mean, the difference between a good con and what they had is just 1 big thing.

Well, actually, I can think of 2 other potential issues that are associated with Readercon:

1. The woman who had the 3 run-ins with the harasser also mentioned that she was on a panel where the moderater acted like a sexist jerk. I don't know what can be done to prevent that in advance, though; if you have a big con and a small committee, at some point you have to put some trust in the moderators. One suggestion that was made is not to just have one woman on a panel.

2. A few years ago, one of the committee members got really freaked at the end of a Readercon and published this screed about how it was all too much, and the next con would be super small, staid, and boring. People talked about this for a while (this is the joke that agharta75 is making), but after getting a good night's sleep the committee member recovered and things went on as usual.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Alas, no. The way that Readercon deals with, and the attitude it takes toward, sexual harassment may not change everything - or even anything - for you or for mindstalk, but it will for me.

And while I appreciate your kindly intent, I have to tell you gently that you seem to be trying to explain to me that it is otherwise, and I would like you to stop that right now please.

I don't know what can be done to prevent that in advance, though; if you have a big con and a small committee, at some point you have to put some trust in the moderators

It is very easy. If a moderator conducts himself as a sexist jerk, do not permit him to moderate again. Make it clear that you want to hear about these things from other panelists and audience members alike, and then treat it as if it were a serious problem that had been brought to your attention by a person who probably knows how to identify sexist-jerk behaviour.

Make it policy. Announce it loudly, in large type, in both general and what-to-expect-when-you're-moderating materials. And then STICK TO THAT.

Treat it, in short, and for that matter treat every other job a con involves as if you actually considered behaving like a sexist jerk while doing a job to be doing a lousy job, almost as bad as if they had screwed up in some way that actually upset and inconvenienced actual people.

(I would like to note that this does appear to be their policy wrt moderators).

We will, of course, have to deal with ten thousand tedious jokes about political correctness and twenty thousand incidents of people gathered together to rules-lawyer, concentrating on all of the hypothetical situations in which the policy might somehow end up being slightly unfair to A Gentleman, for as we all know being possibly slightly hypothetically unfair to A Gentleman is AT LEAST ten times worse than snubbing, insulting, angering and mistreating any number of actual living, breathing, talking (when they get a chance) Ladies, but I for one am prepared to deal with this.

I am especially prepared to deal with it if I am dealing with it in a place where my right to personal safety and boundaries is respected, even by people who don't know me.

[daev.livejournal.com]

Aha, I think I see better now. We are kind of talking at different levels. I had taken James's original request to mean "let's put on our analytical con engineer hats" -- i.e. assume you are in charge of the convention, what specific changes will you make to construct "a Readercon done right"?

With that interpretation, when you said "the whole situation belongs to this year's Readercon" it didn't make much sense to me -- after all, how can we plan our changes until we first decide which policies are the problem and which aren't? So of course you have to analyze the separate elements of the con.

You are talking more about responsibility, I think, and the toxic environment created by what happened this year.

It is very easy. If a moderator conducts himself as a sexist jerk, do not permit him to moderate again.

Can anything be done in advance, though? (That was my original question, sorry if that wasn't clear.) If not, can there be some kind of policy operating during the panel to put a stop to it? Or is the only solution just to react to it after it's happened?

[daev.livejournal.com]

Maybe this would be a good basis to lay down...
Due to the uncomfortable and threatening situation created by this year's con, and the behavior of the con com:
1. It is not enough just to change the harassment rules back to the old "zero-tolerance" for future conventions
2. It is not enough even to hellban the bastard from this year
The convention needs to do something to deal with the betrayal and loss of safety-sense that attendees (& potential attendees) feel now. I don't know what that would be, though.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

3) He doesn't have to be "a bastard" for this to be appropriate.

Which is where I feel they screwed up. And which is incredibly important.

I know him, slightly. He has multiple good features. The point the BOD seems to have failed to grasp is, you're not allowed to just average someone out and not deal with the harm they do if the result is above 75% or whatever arbitrary number.

I have to back out of this due to some local weather, but thanks; I think we've teased out some important and useful threads of the situation.

The only thing I think you can do in advance is general:

a) have there be consequences b) advertise them widely c) enforce them calmly and consistently. This will cause those of basically good will, at least, to be careful in how they behave, and the rest, well, the rest are with ye always, but at least they can only be with ye once or twice each, this way.

[erikagillian.livejournal.com]

The whole con board would resign and new ones chosen. Ban the perp permanently. Start a discussion about what would be a good harassment policy *keeping in mind that it's for the harassee to feel safe* not for the harasser to be helped. I'm not sure how cons formulate policy but doing some of it in public with input from members would probably be a very good idea. And then make the policy explicit and very public. In fact, this would be a selling point for the con, I would think.

I only see this mentioned once in a while, and this is about sexual harassment this time, so that's ok, but I'd like to add that including stuff about racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, and trans* harassment would make it a much more welcoming place.

(Trying not to diminish the problem of sexual harassment at all, it's rampant in our society and possibly getting worse, but while they're at it...)