Date: 2013-07-11 06:53 am (UTC)
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.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

dragoncon_lj_archive: (Default)
Dragoncon Livejournal Community Archive

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2025 01:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios