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.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 06:53 am (UTC)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.