Dragon Con Harasment Policy

[next-friday.livejournal.com]

What is Dragon*Con's stand on Scalzi's Convention Harassment Policy?

"We reserve the right to ask you to leave the convention
and refuse to refund your membership money
if you are behaving - in technical terms - like a jerk."  <- this is not reassuring.

Comments

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

"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.

[braidedmane.livejournal.com]

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.

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

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?

[braidedmane.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

Security does MORE than just enforce harassment policies, but it is fair to say that they do, in fact, enforce any harassment policies, no? Perhaps a well worded policy will detract people from being asshats, but it's been my experience that people who harass weren't doing so just because there wasn't a strict policy preventing it. They either knew it was wrong and didn't care so long as they weren't caught, or sincerely think it's alright to do what they're doing. Maybe a policy will impede the latter, but doubtful. Few people who think they're not doing anything wrong do research to find out if they are.

That said, I will completely agree that-

A. we need a more well defined harassment policy, and
B. DC Security needs training in both implementing it and handling nonthreatening situations.

But like you, I also understand the limitations. We can, and should, do better... but when we fail, and someone is harassed, it's going to be security, not words on a poster, which will hopefully catch the offender and make sure they can't do it again.

[joshthestampede.livejournal.com]

Well, no, actually, most harassment policy violations would not be enforced by Joe Security wandering the convention floor. Things get reported to an official and are dealt with at that level, by either a security higher-up or someone specifically appointed to deal with harassment reports. We aren't talking about volunteer security wandering the Marquis Level scanning all the bar conversation and stepping in when they think someone is too forward, since obviously everyone has different limits and ideas of what is welcome and what is not, and security isn't in a position to know that for every conversation or physical contact they see. No one wants to go to a con like that. We're talking about people having a clear place to go and a series of steps to follow when they want to report what happened to them.

The policy is as much about letting people know that the con gives a shit about this stuff as it is to prevent actual incidents. And even then, it's more about dealing with incidents and making sure serial creepers aren't welcome back than it is about prevention. Prevention is a much larger societal issue and the con can only do so much, though having a clear and non wishy-washy policy is a good step.

You are correct that ultimately, creepers gonna creep and no policy will stop them, but that's not the whole of what the policy is there for.