Dragoncon Livejournal Community Archive

So this is going to come across as harsh. Sorry... but,

1. I expect it's probably against the Marriott rules, if not the law, to be dropping anything from a height like the tenth floor... even paper. After all, if it's okay to drop paper from the 10th, why not the 30th? or the top? Hey... if it's okay to drop paper... why not for me to fly a few paper airplanes... hey... if it's okay for paper airplanes, why not a cardboard one? Hey if it's okay....

Now, maybe none of that is actually *likely*, but mix a little bit of alcohol into the equation, and the odds dramatically go up that it is more likely. So, yeah, I have no problem with an iron clad rule that nothing should be dropped from any height. Period. Sorry if that upsets Fiver. Sorry if Fiver was scared that Fiver might be thrown out of the con. But better Fiver be scared than somebody gets hurt.

Of course, if their reason for telling you 'no' was because fake money might start a frenzy or riot... that's probably true, but also probably shouldn't be the reason you can't do it.

2. You must have you seen the elevator situation at the con? Now, maybe you're talking odd hours when there's room...in which case, yeah, sure... why not...

But if you're talking about the time of day or night when people have to wait ten, twenty, thirty minutes to get to their rooms then, yes by all means, limit the elevators to the people who actually need them. You can people watch from the 10th floor.

3. Totally agree. DC badge should be enough for a room party. But I do wonder, because I don't know, if security is obliged to enforce hotel rules, in which case, it might be the hotels have a rule against room parties involving people from other hotels? I don't know... that'd be interesting to see. But any way you cut it, it's going to be that the Law trumps the hotel rules, and the hotel rules trump the con's rules, and the con's rules trump what we may personally want or not want to do.

Again, sorry if that came across as harsh.

(deleted comment)

From:

You know, you're right. I mean, about my tone... I stand by my points, but you're right I could have been nicer, softened it, phrased it better, whatever. I was in a bad mood yesterday, and I took it out on the internets. I was impatient, and wanted to get my point out as fast as possible. So, for my tone, and brusqueness, I do sincerely apologize. And admit you're right about me being able to be nicer, more polite, and still get my tone across- which I failed to do.

That said, I totally agree with you that so long as there's no wait for elevators, if the hotel doesn't have a problem with people riding in them, then neither should DC security.

Regarding Fiver, what do I do or don't know is only what you've mentioned. You brought this person up in your post,and thus made them fair game, and the only details I have available are those you mentioned- that Fiver was upset that (she?) couldn't throw paper off the tenth floor. So, no, acting on that knowledge alone, I'm not making an ass out myself. I can only respond with the knowledge I have available to the points made. Any forthcoming details might change my opinion- but doubtful. It is simply wrong to throw things off of high places.

And for the same logic, you would have no reason to feel like an ass if details came out that I, or someone I cared about, was seriously hurt by some one throwing something off a high place. The only purpose of first denying that information, and then giving it after a person challenges it, is to make them feel bad, or manipulate the situation or, like you said, try and paint someone as an ass. I don't expect you to feel that way because you don't know every detail about my life, like who may or may not be permanently in a wheel chair because of some stunt like that. You shouldn't. You didn't know. You couldn't. And the same applies to me.

You're insinuating like crazy that Fiver is a person that needs protection and caring for... and is very loved. I get that impression from the emotion that your posts are full of, and in that respect, this Fiver is a very lucky person. I would ask you please, if you sincerely care for her, to not put her in positions, or explain to her in advance, why something like tossing paper or objects off high balconies isn't acceptable. Not doing so is your failing, and not security's. I'm sorry Fiver was upset, but ask yourself how that could have best been avoided? By DC security harshly telling you all something was wrong that I'll bet you already knew.... or you and Fiver's friends and family, who understand her best, handling the situation better from the beginning so that maybe it never even had to happen?

I don't know if this reply comes across any better than my first. Online commentary is so difficult in lacking tone and modulation. I sincerely hope it does, but I also want to get my point across, and sometimes that does mean being a little tough. I just hope that it wasn't as bad as the first one.

From:

While I don't know Fiver, I do know who she is. She appeared in the documentary "Four Days at Dragon*Con". She also is the subject of this post on the DCTV web site:
http://web.dragoncontv.com/general/1177/

I agree that the security guard was out of line in being so harsh as to make her cry.

From:

richardlt.livejournal.com

The examples you gave did not garner any sympathy for you. Here's why:

Throwing paper off the 10th floor is simply littering. Don't do it. Besides, do you want to be mistaken for those jerks that throw more dangerous items like bottles? Catching those people are difficult enough without there being multiple possible culprits. I'd hate for the real culprits to get away because you inadvertently created a decoy while having some harmless fun. Besides, things could easily be knocked over the ledge accidentally.

The elevator is not a toy, nor is it your personal playground. I don't care if it's 5 am and there's no on else in the lobby. Use it to get where you need to go and stay there, but don't ride it up and down for joy rides. It creates unnecessary wear and tear on an already overtaxed system.

By your wording, this sounds more like a private room party than a official Dragon Con party (like the Dragon Dance or any of the other parties listed in the schedule). Dragon Con has no control over private room parties. Who gets in is entirely up to those hosting it. If the host wants to ban anyone not wearing pink tutus, that's there's right, and you nor Dragon Con have any influence in it. With that said, anything listed in the schedule and held in the hotel meeting rooms or ballrooms are accessible with just your Dragon Con badge. Due to the subject matter and/or the presence of alcohol, there may be age restrictions on who can enter. There may also be occupancy limits due to fire hazards that prevent additional people from entering until others leave.

However, if you feel Security is being unfair, get their names, document the situation as much as possible, and report them to their superiors. Bad apples can and do get in, but I just don't see it here. Regardless, these examples are NOT what the harassment policy is trying to prevent.

From:

I'm not sure, but bonnie_halfevn's original post about elevators and room parties may refer to a hotel policy of restricting access to guest room floors to only people who are actually staying in the hotel, along with other people they bring with them. At the Westin, the elevators won't even go up to the guest room floor levels unless at least one person in the elevator has a room key card to insert into the control panel. Do the other hotels try to limit access to guest room floor levels, at least at certain times? This may be what happened in her case, with hotel security stopping them from using the elevator, perhaps while they were trying to get to a room party in that hotel, when none of them were staying there. As you point out, a Dragon Con badge only gives you access to official con events. Hotel security can limit access to the rest of the hotel (which seems reasonable to me) and whatever security a particular party has can limit access to that event (which also seems reasonable to me).

While not part of Dragon Con policy, couldn't hotel limitations on access to guest room floors and limits on access to room parties help to cut down on harassment of con goers?

From:

next-friday.livejournal.com

Plenty of people come to the con with various health conditions. I guess feeling bad about endangering them is something that is too much to ask for, no? They have no fan base, so who gives?

From:

encarmencita.livejournal.com

Yay!

From:

davidvcody.livejournal.com

Here's the link to it:

http://dailydragon.dragoncon.org/dc2013/convention-information-2013/dragon-con-official-harassment-policy/

As promised:

Harassment of any kind, including physically or verbally threatening, annoying, unwelcoming attentions, stalking, pushing, shoving or use of physical force; which in any way creates a disturbance that is disruptive or dangerous, as well as any boisterous, lewd or generally offensive behavior or language, using sexually explicit or offensive language or conduct, or profanity, obscene gestures or racial, religious or ethnic slurs will be considered harassment.

If people tell you NO, your business with them is done. If you continue to attempt to have contact with those people, you may be removed from the premises and your membership revoked.

Remember: “No” means no. “Stop” means stop. “Go away” means go away.

Costuming is not consent.

If you feel you have been harassed please report the matter immediately to the Security Office in the Marriott in Room M102, Hotel Security, or to the closest available Volunteer Staff Member denoted in 2013 by a bright red lanyard. Please remember that we need to know about any incidents during the convention to be able to take immediate action. If you have been accused of harassment and feel that you were treated unfairly you may appeal to the convention chair, but that decision will be final.

As a member, if you see someone harassed or taking inappropriate photos (where the target of the photo is unaware), we encourage you to speak up and say something. As a community, we need to come together, look out for one another, and make sure everyone is treated with respect.

If, at any time, you feel that your personal safety or the safety of others is in jeopardy, please contact the Atlanta Police Department in an emergency via 911. The Atlanta Police Department non-emergency phone number for Zone 5 is 404-658-7830.

Edited Date: 2013-08-08 02:50 pm (UTC)

From:

next-friday.livejournal.com

Thank you!

From:

tardis-stowaway.livejournal.com

Yeah, I also went and looked at D*C's policies after reading Scalzi's piece. I agree that this is not reassuring. :(

It does give the con the option of throwing someone out for harassment, but I don't think it's enough. Explicitly stating that harassment is not allowed, with some definition of what that means, would make the rules clearer. That would both reduce the likelihood of harassers getting an out by claiming they didn't think they were being a jerk and also tell people who are victims of harassment that the con will support them if they lodge a complaint.

Looking at the con policies, it seems that they are trying to make the list succinct and humorous. That's understandable. Still, the weapons policy goes into a bit of detail and gives examples of some things that are not allowed. I think the same can and should be done with a clear harassment policy. It's fine to also include a general catch-all ban on behaving like a jerk, because people will always invent unexpected ways to do that, but they need to directly ban harassment.

From:

The back of last year's D*C badge states:
"A badge may be revoked and a badge holder ejected from the convention for disorderly conduct, a violation of the law or rules, or in the sole discretion of a Dragon*Con official."
I agree that D*C should announce a specific "no harassment allowed" policy, but I don't think doing so would actually cut down on harassment. People who do that kind of thing aren't the type to read rules in the first place. Having a "no harassment" policy would be a good idea for symbolic reasons, making those who have reason to fear being harassed feel more secure and making more attendees aware of the problem. But the legalese on the badge clearly covers things like groping, stalking or being verbally abusive. The only thing that would cut down on harassment is tighter security with more security people, along with more vigilance by the attendees to be be on the lookout for it and act accordingly. Of course, there are limits to that. If the vibe gets to be too much "Big Brother Is Watching You" a lot of blameless people aren't going to feel comfortable being there. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this really just another call for a boycott of the Con if the boycotters' demand isn't met? I'm surprised that Nancy Collins hasn't already started flogging it.

From:

rap541.livejournal.com

Its actually not on the Ed Kramer boycotters agenda (or at least it wasn't)

I'm inclined to agree that the only thing that really would help beyond a symbolic gesture is more security, and more *visible* security and staff.

And maybe discouraging alcoholic consumption a wee bit.

From:

tacnukesoul.livejournal.com

The trick is to get people to report, and that is something a good harassment policy can do - both by making people aware and making the victim more comfortable with reporting. I would follow up a new policy with "Cosplay is not Consent" posters and such in gathering areas where people could see them. Even a great policy won't help if people don't know.

We're finally seeing a sea change in what is acceptable con behavior and it will be scary and there is a small but real possibility of overreactions and false accusations. But there is a real threat for females at cons and it should be addressed. Cons are places to have fun and make friends and that's hard to do if you're worried about harassment.

From:

encarmencita.livejournal.com

This is not personally about DragonCon. A lot of guests, authors, actors, at many media cons have made commitments not to attend any cons where there are not clear harassment policies. Clear and enforced policies protect those being harassed as well as protecting the rights of those participants involved in consensual activities.

DragonCon has lots of enthusiastically consenting parties flirting in the halls and a very prominent and generally awesome romantic, sexual, and erotic scene. This will be preserved and improved, I have no doubt, because the problems only arise when somebody assumes consent without actually getting it (and that can happen in any event at con or outside of con, sadly.)

I don't think we have to worry about "a lot of blameless people..not feeling comfortable being there". The only people who may start to feel uncomfortable being there are stalkers, or creepers, or harassers, and it's a GOOD thing if those people feel uncomfortable. Most people at DragonCon are not in those categories. I feel very safe at DragonCon and have at almost every one I've been to. Almost everybody there is chill or civil. It's a very small subset that is harming the community or that new harassment policies would apply to.

Clear guidelines will protect people of all genders so they can speak out against harassment and know that the security will follow a clearly outlined policy. It will also make DragonCon attract even more quality guests and put patrons at ease.

From:

I agree that we probably don't have to worry about security at D*C making blameless people feel uncomfortable. My point is that any well intentioned movement can go too far. As others have pointed out, a policy is only as good as the quality of the enforcement. If the people charged with enforcing it are mature, fair and even handed, everything will be fine. But all it would take to have it go to far would be for a few Barney Fife or Paul Blart types to be involved. I'm sure folks like that wouldn't last long in a security postion at D*C, but they could be around long enough to cause a different kind of problem. In my personal experience, D*C security does a great job in a difficult situation. I have nothing but praise for them. But adding significant extra security to strongly enforce anti-harassment is bound to bring in a few untested or over zealous individuals who'll take a while to weed out. The problem needs to be addressed, but the solution has to be carefully considered and implemented. Let's not have another witch hunt.

From:

wookieegunner.livejournal.com

Well, I can say for certain that the "like a jerk" policy is at least 10 years old. They had it at my first D*Con (2002). Also, if you exclude the door guards which is an independant third party, Dragon*con Security is all volunteers, so if you are interested in more security I would talk to them about helping out.

From:

holli.livejournal.com

I won't say it's a deal-breaker this year, but not having a real policy definitely marks the con as being behind the times, and I expect them to get it together by next year.

This pretty basic: if you want your congoers to feel safe, have a policy in place to protect them from harassers.

From:

I wouldn't hold your breath. This policy is an old one, and there was a LOT of talk (from attendees) last year about revising it, and D*C's response was far from encouraging.

Basically, they're aware of the problem, but they haven't so far seemed inclined to do anything about it.

I'd like to think that

davidvcody is right above, and they're going to rewrite it to be legit, but frankly I'll believe it when I see it.

From:

It isn't just Dragon*Con that hasn't done everything that they could about this problem. This article in Wired is the best take I've yet seen about the nature of the problem, which appears to be happening at most large Cons and at least some small ones. Even the "sainted" Comic-Con International has been dragging its feet on this one.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/07/convention-harassment-comic-con/

From:

I definitely agree. My focus has just been on D*C because that's the only con I currently attend. Thanks for the link.

From:

"Basically, they're aware of the problem, but they haven't so far seemed inclined to do anything about it."

So, I'm just curious, in your opinion, hiring a third party security to check badges at entrances isn't doing anything?

Could they do more? Absolutely. Are they? Yes- As I understand it, DC will have a very visible con security presence/headquarters where Atlanta PD will be stationed to report anything, along with several other changes... but don't quote me on that, because- agreed, until I see it posted by DC, it's just rumor- but I really think we can cut them a little slack and be a little patient. The con is still sevenish weeks out for changes to be made.

From:

I am talking specifically in regards to the harassment policy, and NO, in my opinion, checking badges is a suitable substitute for a harassment policy and I have no idea why you think it would be. People with badges...can and do perpetrate harassment. Keeping non-congoers out has almost nothing to do with the harassment policy or lack thereof.

Also, when I say last year, I mean well before the con last year. So it's been more than a year, not to mention that last year D*C made it pretty clear they weren't responsive to people's concerns about this specific issue. Would I like to be wrong? Hell yes. But again, I'll believe it when I see it.

You keep conflating adequate security with a harassment policy, and they are completely different things. What I am asking for at the moment is not more security measures, but a clear, written, publicly available policy which states what the con considers harassment and how it will be dealt with.

From:

I do agree that people with badges can harass just as well as someone without a badge.

And I agree that more needs to be done, including a revamping of the policy. However, I do believe that checking badges at the entrances is *something* despite your claims otherwise. Not enough, but a beginning. As a matter of fact, it was done in response to claims of harassment more than overcrowding or an abundance of people off the street gawking. Thus, in fact, it was a response to harassment- in the belief that much of it was coming from non badge holders.

Now, you probably have your stories about how it didn't make things better like I have mine about how it did. We both have probably talked to people, read posts, and have anecdotal evidence, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, neither of has hard data to prove whether it actually did get better or worse after the badge checks. So I'll concede that going around in circles there is just a waste of both of our times if you will.

Also, seeing as how Security will most likely be the body enforcing any harassment policy, I'm not entirely sure that conflating them isn't acceptable. They are more related than I think you're giving them credit for. There could be the greatest harassment policy of all time written and in existence, but without trained security, it's pretty pointless, wouldn't you agree?

From:

IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO HAVING A CLEARLY WRITTEN POLICY. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. The physical existence (or planned existence) of people who will check badges has literally nothing to do with whether there is a clearly written harassment policy.

I'm asking for a banana, and you're shoving oranges in my hands and saying "You can have the ripest bananas in the world, but you won't be able to make a fruit salad without these oranges, don't you agree?"

I am not. fucking. talking. about. enforcement. There is currently no clear policy to enforce, and THAT is what I'm talking about. A security force is not a harassment policy, and I can't imagine how I could possibly say that any more clearly.

From:

joshthestampede.livejournal.com

Security and policy are not the same thing. They do not do the same things and they do not attempt to.

I actually do have quite the problem with D*C security, but I understand the limitations. I understand they are volunteers. But I've had nothing but mildly bad experiences with them, as they tend to spend their time yelling at people for sitting down in the wrong place and just come off as power-tripping dicks rather than actual security personnel. The one year where they all decided it would be a great idea to have the security staff cosplay as soldiers/cops/various authority figures was the worst, since it made it genuinely difficult to tell if this person in a Gears of War costume yelling at you was actually security or just a random asshole.

From: