Dragon-Conned
Laurie J. Anderson
events you couldn't attend even with a full membership;
-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
Martin Smith
Bogus security....worse gaming ever experienced...
Martin
Paul W. Cashman
I'll agree to a point on bogus security (sure, it's best to be a
little too hard than too lenient, but I've heard a few reports that
will be discussed amongst the concomm).
Could you be a little more specific about gaming? I understand there
were no reports of problems at the NASFiC in Review panel on Sunday
(for a wonder). Send them to me in email in case I miss it here, and
I'll include it in my submission to our internal directors' APA.
--
+---------- Paul W. Cashman van...@crl.com ------------+
| Director, Pre-con Publications |
| Dragon*Con/North American SF Convention July 13-16 |
+---- "Let the Light Surround You" Dream Theater -------+
FASTMIKE
would happen over labor day weekend, and later was told that was not the
case, I didn't go. I went to Westercon, which was WONDERFUL. To be fair,
I had a great time in Atlanta at the Worldcon, but I was not satisfied
with the way I perceived the convention dates to be misrepresented, either
by omission or design. See you in Glasgow!
FAST...@AOL.COM
Eat your hearts out, I get paid to watch movies!
Mike Scott
stan...@LunaCity.com "Kevin Standlee" writes:
>You could hold NASFiC (or Worldcon) ANYTIME during the year
>for which you are bidding.
Not strictly true, I believe, as there are other provisions in the
constitution concerning Hugo nominations and site selection which render
it effectively impossible to hold the Worldon in the first few months of
the year.
--
Mike Scott || This space under construction
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk ||
peg...@fastlane.net
> After I voted for Nasfic in Atlanta with the belief that the convention
> would happen over labor day weekend, and later was told that was not the
> case,
>>>>
Well, since it clearly stated on the site selection ballot what the dates they were bidding for were, you
have no one to blame but yourself. I'm certain that Kevin Standlee will corraborate this.
Scott Merritt
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/pegasus/
Kevin Standlee
> After I voted for Nasfic in Atlanta with the belief that the convention
> would happen over labor day weekend, and later was told that was not the
> case, I didn't go. I went to Westercon, which was WONDERFUL. To be fair,
> I had a great time in Atlanta at the Worldcon, but I was not satisfied
> with the way I perceived the convention dates to be misrepresented, either
> by omission or design. See you in Glasgow!
You say that you voted for Atlanta for the 1995 NASFiC. In order to
vote, you had to fill out a ballot. In order to vote for Atlanta, you
had to place some sort of mark (probably a "1") next to the entry on the
ballot that said "Atlanta." Right underneath the "Atlanta" was the
proposed dates of the convention, which were indeed in July. I know this
is true because I designed the ballot, and inasmuch as one bid was
proposing non-traditional dates, I thought it important to tell the
voters about this difference.
I cannot see how you can believe that you "perceived the convention dates
to be misrepresented" when THE INFORMATION WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
Please don't blame anyone for "misrepresenting the convention dates." So
far as I can tell, nobody did. The DragonNASFiC bid did say that they
planned to combine NASFiC with DragonCon, and they did say they would
hold it in July. Now there are people out there who _assume_ that the
rules _require_ NASFiC to be held on Labor Day weekend. There are no
such rules. You could hold NASFiC (or Worldcon) ANYTIME during the year
for which you are bidding.
It is important that you read the ballot, including the instructions. In
fact, on this year's ballot, it explicitly says that when you sign the
ballot, you agree that you've read the instructions, and that if you
don't sign the ballot, we won't count it.
Lest anyone think I'm singling out Atlanta for mud here, I will also
point out that the ballot for this year's Worldcon site selection also
shows the "proposed dates" for each bid as shown in their filings. I
did this because, just as for the NASFiC election, there is a bid running
for a non-traditional date. The Baltimore bid is bidding for, as I
recall, the second weekend of August 1998, not Labor Day. Therefore, I
put the proposed dates for each bid underneath that bid's entry.
Note that it appears that the proposed dates shown for Baltimore may be
off by one day. The dates on the ballot are what is shown in Baltimore's
bid filing, and nobody has amended their filing, but people have
informally told me that the dates shown are not correct. If Baltimore
amends their bid filing, I will change the dates for the version of the
ballot used at Intersection, but it will not change the validity of the
other ballots already released.
Kevin Standlee
stan...@lunacity.com
1998 Worldcon Site Selection Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Kevin Standlee -> (stan...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
WILLIAM E NEAL
lau...@sparrow.ecology.uga.edu (Laurie J. Anderson) writes:
>Hostile, inept staff; dealers' feeling duped; under-budgeted con suite;
>events you couldn't attend even with a full membership;
>-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to be
about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel after
the panel started? Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
film program -- at least I heared there was one.
Maybe DragonCon just tried to hold too many cons under one roof.
FASTMIKE
vote, you had to fill out a ballot. In order to vote for Atlanta, you
had to place some sort of mark (probably a "1") next to the entry on the
ballot that said "Atlanta." Right underneath the "Atlanta" was the
proposed dates of the convention, which were indeed in July. I know this
is true because I designed the ballot, and inasmuch as one bid was
proposing non-traditional dates, I thought it important to tell the
voters about this difference.
Kevin, I don't remember at this late date that the dates were printed on
the ballots, but I do remember discussing it with a rep (or supposed rep)
of Atlanta at their bid party and being assured the date was being changed
to Labor Day. The guy was a bit heavy with dark black hair, about 5'11"
tall, if I ever positively ID him...! Maybe I was a sucker, but hey, I
believed him. I vaguely remember something (couldn't swear to it) about
dates on the ballot, and maybe thinking that they were listed
incorrectly... or I could be misremembering after the fact. I do clearly
remember being told at the bid party the date would be Labor Day weekend.
I think Bruce Pelz took my ballot vote... he may remember more I might
have discussed it with him.
>>>I cannot see how you can believe that you "perceived the convention
dates
to be misrepresented" when THE INFORMATION WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
Please don't blame anyone for "misrepresenting the convention dates." So
far as I can tell, nobody did. The DragonNASFiC bid did say that they
planned to combine NASFiC with DragonCon, and they did say they would
hold it in July. Now there are people out there who _assume_ that the
rules _require_ NASFiC to be held on Labor Day weekend. There are no
such rules. You could hold NASFiC (or Worldcon) ANYTIME during the year
for which you are bidding.
I understand, see above.
>>>>It is important that you read the ballot, including the instructions.
In
fact, on this year's ballot, it explicitly says that when you sign the
ballot, you agree that you've read the instructions, and that if you
don't sign the ballot, we won't count it.
understood.
>>>>Lest anyone think I'm singling out Atlanta for mud here, I will also
point out that the ballot for this year's Worldcon site selection also
shows the "proposed dates" for each bid as shown in their filings. I
did this because, just as for the NASFiC election, there is a bid running
for a non-traditional date. The Baltimore bid is bidding for, as I
recall, the second weekend of August 1998, not Labor Day. Therefore, I
put the proposed dates for each bid underneath that bid's entry.
Good Idea, I agree completely
>>>>>Note that it appears that the proposed dates shown for Baltimore may
be
off by one day. The dates on the ballot are what is shown in Baltimore's
bid filing, and nobody has amended their filing, but people have
informally told me that the dates shown are not correct. If Baltimore
amends their bid filing, I will change the dates for the version of the
ballot used at Intersection, but it will not change the validity of the
other ballots already released.
You say above re Baltimore, "people have informally told you that the
dates shown are not correct..." What a coincidence! and you believed
them? You actually believe that the dates on the ballot MAY NOT BE
CORRECT and that the con WILL BE HELD SOME OTHER DATE? You trust what
people tell you!!??!?!? And why would it not change the validity of other
ballots already released, practicality aside? I mean, shouldn't everyone
who voted on the incorrect ballots be notified by mail with a new ballot
and a chance to change their vote based on date revisions? I mean, its not
practical so it won't happen, but in a perfect world.... The thing is, I
was told one thing , I believed it, I voted for Atlanta, I was
"misinformed", it would have changed my vote.
Legalities aside, its a crummy stunt for anyone to pull just to con me out
of my vote, and although its not a perfect world, I get angry when people
work to make it an even less perfect world through deceit.
No hard feelings, maybe I should have checked more scrupulously, but maybe
you now understand why I was a bit miffed. And why I refused to attend
THAT con in Atlanta. People should not profit for deceit. I just feel
sorry for everyone who worked on the con who had their rep blackened by
the actions of that fellow at the bid party.
Michael Donahue FAST...@AOL.COM
MichelleM1
lau...@sparrow.ecology.uga.edu (Laurie J. Anderson) writes:
>Hostile, inept staff; dealers' feeling duped; under-budgeted con suite;
>events you couldn't attend even with a full membership;
>-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
Don't forget the art show. Anyone but me feel like we should be getting a
piece of cheese for making out of that maze? There was a lot of wonderful
stuff that I couldn't see because I couldn't get more than six inches away
without backing into the panel opposite.
Miche...@aol.com Michelle Moyer
"Sometimes I give myself the creeps." --Green Day
MichelleM1
W00...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (WILLIAM E NEAL) writes:
>In article <laurie-1707...@eco105.ecology.uga.edu>
>lau...@sparrow.ecology.uga.edu (Laurie J. Anderson) writes:
>>Hostile, inept staff; dealers' feeling duped; under-budgeted con suite;
>>events you couldn't attend even with a full membership;
>>-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
>
>How about panels with only two members when several times that were
>scheduled?
>Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to
be
>about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel
after
>the panel started?
And my all-time favorite, the panels at which panelists said, "I really
don't know why I'm on this panel; someone asked me to, but I don't know
anything about it." (The other panel problem--panelists who had their own
little agenda that they persisted in beating into the ground--isn't
Dragon*Con's fault, and I won't blame them for it. I'll just scream to
myself.)
>Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
>film program -- at least I heared there was one.
There was supposedly one--but no one (and I'm speaking of STAFF here, not
about myself) seemed to be able to find it. (I couldn't find it
either--that's why I asked the less-than friendly staff.)
Kevin Standlee
>
> Kevin, I don't remember at this late date that the dates were printed on
> the ballots, but I do remember discussing it with a rep (or supposed rep)
I _might_ be able to track down a ballot, if that's the only proof you
will accept. I probably kept one or two somewhere. At least I should be
able to find the file which I used to create the ballot. However, I
noticed that someone else pointed this out to you before I'd even posted
the first reply.
> You say above re Baltimore, "people have informally told you that the
> dates shown are not correct..." What a coincidence! and you believed
> them? You actually believe that the dates on the ballot MAY NOT BE
> CORRECT and that the con WILL BE HELD SOME OTHER DATE? You trust what
> people tell you!!??!?!? And why would it not change the validity of other
> ballots already released, practicality aside? I mean, shouldn't everyone
Because the difference is only one day. Apparently the filing papers
show the convention happening over Thursday-Monday when the real dates
are Wednesday-Sunday. It's not like they're claiming a completely
different weekend, or a different city.
Of course, after a committee wins, all bets are off. There's no
enforcement mechanism in the constitution. Remember that a Worldcon once
moved from Orlando to Miami because of hotel problems. ConFrancisco had
to completely rework its facilities from what was originally announced
because they lost their anchor hotel.
I presume you think the lack of an enforcement mechanism in the WSFS
Constitution to be a Bad Thing. Therefore, I ask you to suggest a
workable way of making committees do what they promise.
> practical so it won't happen, but in a perfect world.... The thing is, I
> was told one thing , I believed it, I voted for Atlanta, I was
> "misinformed", it would have changed my vote.
Nobody official from the administering convention (MagiCon) is likely to
have told you anything other than what was on the ballot and what was in
the filing papers. Believing every word spoken by everyone else around
the convention during a bidding campaign is as dangerous as believing
political campaign commercials.
Kevin Standlee
Rules Maven At Large
Dave Slusher
> >-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
>
> How about panels with only two members when several times that were scheduled?
> Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to be
> about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel after
> film program -- at least I heared there was one.
>
All of these program glitches are true. For example, the "Physics in SF"
panel had exactly one participant - Jack McDevitt as the moderator. Jack
was a trouper and turned the panel into something quite interesting by
discussing questions with the audience. In effect, everybody was the panel
and it was quite enjoyable. This was due only to Jack, and could have been
awful in the hands of someone less gregarious.
This is also the first year I've enjoyed being on panels. I was on the
"Medical Science and SF" panel. Up until almost showtime (10 PM on Friday
night - not the most happening time), I thought I would be the only
panelist. Mary K. Frey and Jody Lynn Nye came in close to 10. For such a
dry topic at that time of night, we had a capacity crowd in that little
room, somewhere around 35 or 40 people. The crowd was knowledgeable and
asked great questions. After the panel was over, I stayed around for
another 20 or 30 minutes talking to a group of guys about technological
policies. It was loads of fun, and altogether not what I was expecting. I
figured I'd show up, the room would be empty, and I'd get to the hotel bar
an hour early.
I'm not here to make excuses for the fouled-up programming. There was a
lot of inexcusable stuff, and some things that weren't even as good as the
normal D*C. Every other year the guest badge has had a list of your panels
on the back. If confused, just look at the badge. This year, you had to
search through pages of tiny type looking for your name. Many people
missed panels just because they didn't know they were on them.
Like many of the people I talked to, I had a lovely time - much of which
was just tangential to the convention, and more a function of having lots
of my friends and acquaintances under one roof. The convention itself
could have been much better - and has been.
--
Reality Break - a science fiction talk show:
<URL: http://www.america.net/~daves/rbreak/>
Nicola Griffith, hot SF writer:
<URL: http://www.america.net/~daves/ng/>
Evelyn C. Leeper
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
> To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
> any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
> personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
> problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
> some discreet title, yes.
>
> But to label anyone other than off-duty cops as "security" is simply
> offering a fugghead magnet. The only alternative I would suggest is
> creating a "security" department, and then sending everyone who
> volunteers across town in a bus.
I think I agree. Of course, you need security in the dealers room and
art show, and these folks should be professionals for a convention the
size of DragonCon (*whatever* size that was). Basic badge-checking is
preventative security, if you will, to convince people not to try to
sneak in. If you really want someone to "police" the area, hire police.
> An anecdote was posted about Dragoncon "security" stopping people on the
> stairwells. I wonder if it occurred to anyone involved that no con
> worker has the slightest legal authority to detain, or compel any sort of
> action upon, anyone. That anyone should take this nonsense seriously is
> frightening. That a con committee should organize things this way is
> more frightening. That such a con committee wants to bid for a worldcon
> is appalling.
Certainly my first thought was, "If I have a room in the hotel, who are
these bozos to tell me I can't use the stairwells? Take a hike."
Once, when my brother was in fourth grade and I in the ninth, my mother
sent me to meet him after school with a raincoat because it had started
to rain. The fourth-graders had to march in line from the door to the
main street, and the fifth-grade patrol guard told me I had to get into
line. I just looked at him like he was nuts and said, "Make me."
So now he's doing con security?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would
not have any significant first person, present indicative."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Brad Templeton
Kevin Standlee <stan...@LunaCity.com> wrote:
>such rules. You could hold NASFiC (or Worldcon) ANYTIME during the year
>for which you are bidding.
Since the WSFS constitution does require that Hugos be given out, and
nominations can't close before January 31 (because somebody who buys their
membership Jan 31 is entitled to make a nominating vote) one can't hold
a Hugo ceremony before Feb 1.
Actually, since it demands that award voting be by mail (how backwards for
an SF society) with mail the way it is in the world, you probably would
get challenged if you held one before Mar 1.
I suppose there is no specific rule requiring a Hugo ceremony *at*
the worldcon, but you would get some funny looks if you didn't do it.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. in...@clari.net
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (100,000 readers) http://www.clari.net/brad/
Around the world in 14 days --- http://www.clari.net/brad/trip.html
Gary Farber
: >Bogus security....worse gaming ever experienced...
: I'll agree to a point on bogus security (sure, it's best to be a
: little too hard than too lenient, but I've heard a few reports that
: will be discussed amongst the concomm).
To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
some discreet title, yes.
But to label anyone other than off-duty cops as "security" is simply
offering a fugghead magnet. The only alternative I would suggest is
creating a "security" department, and then sending everyone who
volunteers across town in a bus.
Sf cons have always done well at policing themselves, and have never,
ever, had "security" departments until this sort of moronic idea began
leaking over from trekkie cons to cons run by people who don't know any
better and can't figure it out on their own.
Words are important, as are functional distinctions. We need gophers to
watch at doors for badges? I've always preferred to call them "gophers,"
or "badge-watchers." Anything that doesn't give people delusions of
authority.
An anecdote was posted about Dragoncon "security" stopping people on the
stairwells. I wonder if it occurred to anyone involved that no con
worker has the slightest legal authority to detain, or compel any sort of
action upon, anyone. That anyone should take this nonsense seriously is
frightening. That a con committee should organize things this way is
more frightening. That such a con committee wants to bid for a worldcon
is appalling.
People should not stand for it. If they do, they deserve what they get.
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
gfa...@panix.com I is another, and I am that other. -- Rimbaud
Ulrika
>anything about it." (The other panel problem--panelists who had their own
>little agenda that they persisted in beating into the ground--isn't
>Dragon*Con's fault, and I won't blame them for it. I'll just scream to
>myself.)
"Fault" may be too strong a word, but if Dragon Con didn't assign
a moderator to each panel, they took just the risk you mention: panelists
with off-topic agendas taking over. (Course, if you assign the wrong
moderator, you're still out with the wash.)
--Ulrika
Kevin Standlee
> In article <R2LJ9c...@LunaCity.com>,
> Kevin Standlee <stan...@LunaCity.com> wrote:
> >such rules. You could hold NASFiC (or Worldcon) ANYTIME during the year
> >for which you are bidding.
>
> Since the WSFS constitution does require that Hugos be given out, and
> nominations can't close before January 31 (because somebody who buys their
> membership Jan 31 is entitled to make a nominating vote) one can't hold
> a Hugo ceremony before Feb 1.
>
Brad, there is nothing in the Constitution which says you have to hold a
Hugo Awards Ceremony. You could hold the Worldcon in January and still
administer the awards in the usual way. The Hugo voting would then be
taking place AFTER the Worldcon, but there's nothing illegal about that.
You could then publish a press release announcing the winners and mail
their trophies to them.
Site Selection is easier to handle, because the deadlines are all defined
in terms of "number of days before administering convention." For our
hypothetical January Worldcon, the filing deadline would be sometime in
July--probably BEFORE the previous year's Worldcon!
Now it would be very strange, but there would be nothing illegal about
it. The WSFS Rules are actually very lenient except in a few specific
things.
David G. Bell
p...@cooky.demon.co.uk "Pat McMurray" writes:
> In article <3uofvp$6...@panix2.panix.com>,
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
> >To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
> >any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
> >personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
> >problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
> >some discreet title, yes.
>
> "Steward" is a good word.
At the Eastercon last year, in Liverpool, the con employed some
_professional_ security guards to control access to the convention -- I
think only on Saturday night. I didn't hear of any problems with them,
though I have heard a few stories about problems with hotel employees.
In the more distant past, where the hotel had a public Nightclub outside
the convention area, one or two of the Nightclub security staff, aka
bouncers, were a bit of a problem. Maybe incompatible cultures, but I
heard the story from one of the people involved, and she was _not_ happy
with their social skills.
There is a difference between access control, and policing the
convention itself.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
Dan Deckert
>To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
>any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
>personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
>problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
>some discreet title, yes.
>
>But to label anyone other than off-duty cops as "security" is simply
>offering a fugghead magnet. The only alternative I would suggest is
>creating a "security" department, and then sending everyone who
>volunteers across town in a bus.
Well, how about that. An area where we are in _complete_
agreement. People do seem to be better able to deal with the
concept of no "Security" than they were back in the late '70s and
early '80s. That's when the excesses of the "Dorsai Irregulars"
made most of us here in L.A. start to re-think our policies in
this area. We now use a small staff of Operations Rovers to keep
an eye on things.
>Words are important, as are functional distinctions. We need gophers to
>watch at doors for badges? I've always preferred to call them "gophers,"
>or "badge-watchers." Anything that doesn't give people delusions of
>authority.
I think that many cons actually overdo the badge-checking thing.
When I've run Volunteers for various cons, that's been the hardest
position to staff reliably.
>An anecdote was posted about Dragoncon "security" stopping people on the
>stairwells. I wonder if it occurred to anyone involved that no con
>worker has the slightest legal authority to detain, or compel any sort of
>action upon, anyone. That anyone should take this nonsense seriously is
>frightening. That a con committee should organize things this way is
>more frightening. That such a con committee wants to bid for a worldcon
>is appalling.
I ran into a variety of Dragon*Con security folks in the
stairwells. None of them said "boo." (Of course, I don't look
like much of a threat/troublemaker). Didn't notice them bothering
anybody else, either.
Dan Deckert
ddec...@ufsmain.win.net
Pat McMurray
>To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
>any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
>personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
>problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
>some discreet title, yes.
"Steward" is a good word.
Pat
Fiona Anderson
> > any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
> > personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
> > problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
> > some discreet title, yes.
on just anyone who says they want to do Security, of course you're
going to have problems... however if you get the right people signed
up who you know to pride themselves on their situation-calming
techniques and their invisibility, then you're on the right tracks.
Most of the problems with Security workers have arisen when the people
recruited were into wearing uniforms or whatever other blatant signs
of their role, and the mentality that entails.
Our Security people come in two categories - the first will all be
labelled as Stewards, and do the general badge-check/doorwatching
jobs. The second are aiming to be invisible to the general congoers,
but will be doing quiet roving patrols to troubleshoot any potential
problems for us.
Fiona Anderson
>
>
--
Fiona Anderson
*WARNING* You have entered a Tact Free Zone.
laurie higgins
.........I'll start out by saying that this is my 4th time attending
Dragon Con/ACE and yes I still enjoy this con and do plan to attend
next year. Now on to my complaints....
1. Space, there were several times that the panel I wanted to
attend or the show I wanted to see I didn't simply because
the room filled up and I was shut out. In the past the
Grand Ballroom was NOT sectioned into two halfs and I feel
that this is the reason that I missed out on so much. If
you are gonna have a con with 15,000 or so people there,you
are gonna need a really big room that can hold a good
portion of them for at least a few events. The room should
have been enlarged and split according to event.
2. Security, what a joke this was, I don't know if they were
just overwhelmbed by the large number of attendees or if
letting regular people be security goes directly to their
heads. They were not helpful, and even bully like at
times. I understand that they had to deal with alot of
people, but they could at least leave the attitude at home.
I was at the Viva La Diva show on saturday night and it
felt like the gestapo had arrived. The people began to
dance, psudo-mosh, just bumping about really. They broke
up. One guy (who wasn't dancing) stood directly in front
of the stage. And although he did appear menacing, he
never moved from his spot. Yet there were at least 15 or
so "security" people standing in front of and at the sides
of the stage. It was so bad, the people who had been
standing there watching the band went and sat down. Later
I heard one of the security personnel telling another that
he was disappointed that the "guy" didn't do anything cause
he wanted to jump him. They all chuckled.
3. No Art Room, I couldn't believe that the art show was
squeezed into that tiny little space in the dealers room.
What in the hell was that all about? There was a seperate
room for the art show at Dragon Cons past. There was no-
where near enough room to properly view the work and you
always had someone behind you pushing you along. The whole
thing gave me a headache and I had to leave the exibit
before seeing the whole thing. I couldn't believe it, and
left feeling extreamly disappointed.
.......these are my only 3 gripes. I like the wide varity of things
to see and do at Dragon Con. To me they are all included in what we
call "FANDOM" and they all deserve to be there. Also, I do agree that
registration has improved greatly over registrations of the past... see
ya next year...
Gary Farber
: Well, how about that. An area where we are in _complete_
: agreement. People do seem to be better able to deal with the
: concept of no "Security" than they were back in the late '70s and
: early '80s. That's when the excesses of the "Dorsai Irregulars"
: made most of us here in L.A. start to re-think our policies in
: this area. We now use a small staff of Operations Rovers to keep
: an eye on things.
Operations Rovers, fancy that. Wherever did such an idea come from, he
twinkled. Good deal.
As I said, I respect _you_, Dan, regardless of what my reputation in LA
may be. I don't worry much about my reputation; maybe I should, but I don't.
: I think that many cons actually overdo the badge-checking thing.
: When I've run Volunteers for various cons, that's been the hardest
: position to staff reliably.
Shrug. It's only as important as you want it to be; no more or less.
YMMV (there, am I a *true* net.citizen now?).
: I ran into a variety of Dragon*Con security folks in the
: stairwells. None of them said "boo." (Of course, I don't look
: like much of a threat/troublemaker). Didn't notice them bothering
: anybody else, either.
Glad to hear it. Wasn't my anecdote, I wasn't there, I don't pass judgment.
Overall, the reports don't seem inspirational, though, regardless of the
merits of praiseworthy individuals. I repeat, however: I wasn't there. I
have no judgment as to the merits of DRAGON*CON.
For all I know they pulled off such galactic-shaking feats of con-running
genius behind the scenes that we're now all on our way to an Intersection
with another globular cluster. Ya never know unless you're dere, Charlie,
er, Dan.
Cluster of what, I'm not speculating.
Cassandra
laurie higgins <stom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> 2. Security, what a joke this was, I don't know if they were
> just overwhelmbed by the large number of attendees or if
> letting regular people be security goes directly to their
> heads. They were not helpful, and even bully like at
> never moved from his spot. Yet there were at least 15 or
> so "security" people standing in front of and at the sides
> of the stage. It was so bad, the people who had been
> standing there watching the band went and sat down. Later
> I heard one of the security personnel telling another that
> he was disappointed that the "guy" didn't do anything cause
> he wanted to jump him. They all chuckled.
>
in a room at the Hilton. late saturday night/early sunday morning, several
friends of mine (many of whom were also workers and/or guests at the hilton)
decided to sit around and talk. that's it. we were talking, not drinking,
dancing, doing drugs, or playing loud music. we were doing this in the
'space lounge', which was just right down the hall form my room. two or
three security people decided that they had to stand on the floor to monitor
us at all times, and we watched as security people circled 'round from higher
up floors to descend upon us, since we were such a threat. i know from
being on that floor that the acoustics don't travel towards the rooms, so
we couldn't have been disturbing people. when, in fact, one guy came to
check badges/room keys, one of my companions, who by this time was quite fed
up with being monitored, pulled out every piece of id he owned....the
'security' guy responded by asking if we would like to see his permit to
carry concealed weapons, etc....
it got so ridiculous, every time one of the security people walked by we'd
start humming "Vader's theme" (or whatever it's called) from star wars, and
pretend the security were saying things into their walkie-talkies like "Lord
Vader, I think they're on to us", "Sector 12 is occupied, lord vader",
"nothing to report, lord vader, should i start shooting some ewoks?"
no, really, we _weren't_ drinking. we're just weird. :)
--
A^3
: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
: >To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
: >any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
: >personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
: >problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
: >some discreet title, yes.
I've been to two cons that required security in the UK. I worked
security at one of them. They were the two most recent Liverpool
Eastercons. Ask any of the people who had things stolen at Eastcon
if security was needed for Sou'Wester.
--
TTFN, A^3 ***************E-mail*a...@dcs.st-and.ac.uk*****************
***Mundus Vult Decipi****S-mail*45 Fife Park, St Andrews KY16 9UE****
****************************Tel*+44-1334-463268***+44-589-464141*****
********Home Page: <http://www-theory.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaa/>*********
Berni Phillips
: Brad, there is nothing in the Constitution which says you have to hold a
: Hugo Awards Ceremony. You could hold the Worldcon in January and still
: administer the awards in the usual way. The Hugo voting would then be
: taking place AFTER the Worldcon, but there's nothing illegal about that.
: You could then publish a press release announcing the winners and mail
: their trophies to them.
Oh, I can see the pictures in Locus now: the Hugo administrators surrounded
by all these brown-wrapped parcels as they announce the year's Hugo
winners! 8-)
Berni
Bill Langston
> Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to be
> about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel after
> the panel started? Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
> film program -- at least I heared there was one.
I think the DragonCon staff will be the first to tell you that they had a
severe problem with programming. A couple of major disasters (i.e. a last
minute illness by the programming organizer) totally devastated the
programming scheduling, planning, and logistics, and that threw a lot of
things off-balance and had repercussions throughout almost the entire con.
These things happen, and it's the first problem of this magnitude that I've
seen at a Dragon (I've been to 5 of the last 6; my roommate has been to the
last 9 and he agrees.) It was a problem, they dealt with it as well as they
could, and all the griping in the world about "two panels for the same person
at the same time" and "all the good panels at the same time" is not
productive. I assure you that no one was more appalled at the problems than
the staff, who were otherwise very well-organized and prepared.
> Maybe DragonCon just tried to hold too many cons under one roof.
That's what I like about Dragon; it's not just a media convention or a
literary convention - it incorporates a lot of stuff that you normally don't
see. I get rather irritated at people griping because there were things there
that they weren't interested in. I've never cared for filking, bondage, or
live action role-playing, but you know what? I just don't participate in it.
I consider the minor inconvenience of having to go around it a small price to
pay for all the opportunities there are. That's why I'm an eternal member.
I do agree that the "one roof" is getting too small; in 97, they're moving to
a much bigger venue, so hopefully the crowding will settle down.
--Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Langston - "Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
Internet: wfl...@tntech.edu TECNET: TTU::WFL4468
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulrika
>As I said, I respect _you_, Dan, regardless of what my reputation in LA
>may be.
<ears perking> Oh???? *Do* tell.
--Ulrika
David Langford
aaa@keith (A^3) riposted:
> : In article <3uofvp$6...@panix2.panix.com>,
> : gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
> : [dislike of named "Security" department snipped]
> I've been to two cons that required security in the UK. I worked
> security at one of them. They were the two most recent Liverpool
> Eastercons. Ask any of the people who had things stolen at Eastcon
> if security was needed for Sou'Wester.
Gary's point was that calling a necessary job "Security" may, in his
experience, attract the Wrong Sort Of People -- e.g. those who enjoy
being Extremely Important, pushing people around, telling them they can't
sit here, etc., rather than gently smoothing and protecting the working
of the con.
This contrasts strongly with John Harold's team at Sou'Wester in
Liverpool, which liked to call itself the Department of Stealth and Total
Obscurity; John half-joked that if fans noticed them in operation, they'd
failed! All this seemed to work pretty well.
So it's an argument about implications of the name "Security", and
resulting attitudes, rather than the department itself.
---------
David Langford
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jo Walton
> I've been to two cons that required security in the UK. I worked
> security at one of them. They were the two most recent Liverpool
> Eastercons. Ask any of the people who had things stolen at Eastcon
> if security was needed for Sou'Wester.
Yes - but Security in Sou'Wester was sensible, unobtrusive and polite. Even
Andy? Yes, even Andy. :-)
(And furthermore I believe that every Eastercon should be in the Adelphi.)
--
Jo
*************************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
*************************************************************
Help me colonise an alien planet at Intersection Glasgow '95
*************************************************************
Laurie D. T. Mann
> W00...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (WILLIAM E NEAL) writes:
> > How about panels with only two members when several times that were scheduled?
> > Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to be
> > about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel after
> > the panel started? Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
> > film program -- at least I heared there was one.
> I think the DragonCon staff will be the first to tell you that they had a
> severe problem with programming. A couple of major disasters (i.e. a last
> minute illness by the programming organizer) totally devastated the
> programming scheduling, planning, and logistics, and that threw a lot of
> things off-balance and had repercussions throughout almost the entire con.
BUT...
If a convention is well-planned, a missing committee member or two
shouldn't have fouled up the works so much. The main area that sounded
like it went well was registration. Registration, while certainly
important, isn't the whole convention. There have been hundreds
of lines of complaints about the Program, Art Show and Dealers' Room
in this newsgroup this week.
> These things happen, and it's the first problem of this magnitude that I've
> seen at a Dragon (I've been to 5 of the last 6; my roommate has been to the
> last 9 and he agrees.) It was a problem, they dealt with it as well as they
> could, and all the griping in the world about "two panels for the same person
> at the same time" and "all the good panels at the same time" is not
> productive.
If that sort of thing happens once or twice, hey, it's an understandable
mistake. Lots of people have raised the multiple-program problem
and the ignoring George
Alec Effinger problem. The comments about the screwups with the Dragoncon
program (and the Art Show and the Dealers Room) indicates a good deal of
incompetence was spread around.
> I assure you that no one was more appalled at the problems than
> the staff, who were otherwise very well-organized and prepared.
Hmmm, an interesting claim. In skimming some of Kelly's newsletter, I don't
remember seeing basic info like "how many people attended" mentioned.
Almost all the newsletters were personal opinions about
specific programs or pieces of the con. There was very little fact in
any of the official newsletters.
> > Maybe DragonCon just tried to hold too many cons under one roof.
> That's what I like about Dragon; it's not just a media convention or a
> literary convention - it incorporates a lot of stuff that you normally don't
> see. I get rather irritated at people griping because there were things there
> that they weren't interested in. I've never cared for filking, bondage, or
> live action role-playing, but you know what? I just don't participate in it.
Great, but should a committee that claims to be bidding for a World Science
Fiction convention, which IS a literary convention, be pushing this kind of
crap on its members? It's one thing, for, say, Circlet Press (a small
press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
Worldcon I would ever support
Laurie Mann * lm...@telerama.lm.com * http://worcester.lm.com/lmann/index.html
*A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants. --Chuckles*
**************ServiceWare Database Wrangler and CyberLibrarian****************
Chris Meredith
knowledge...
>Well, how about that. An area where we are in _complete_
>agreement. People do seem to be better able to deal with the
>concept of no "Security" than they were back in the late '70s and
>early '80s. That's when the excesses of the "Dorsai Irregulars"
>made most of us here in L.A. start to re-think our policies in
>this area. We now use a small staff of Operations Rovers to keep
>an eye on things.
And what "excesses" would those be, oh sage historian?
I find it sad indeed that the people of an organization that has given so much
back to convention fandom over the last 20 years continue to find themselves
smeared by clueless hacks looking for a convenient label.
The Dorsai Irregulars, formed in 1974 with the blessing of Gordon R. Dickson,
got its start by watching over the art in Joni Stopa and Bjo Trimble's
"Project Artshow", the travelling Artshow that was the precurser to the
artshows that nowadays are fixtures at conventions everywhere. As the Klingon
Diplomatic Corps. they did badge check and star escort at the huge 'Trek cons
of the '70's, like Chicago trek and the infamous New York "riotcon" - a 'Trek
con that was oversold by Ticketron to the tune of 30,000 memberships. All
these events were immortalized in comics by Phil Foglio with the appropriate
comedic license. Those exploits and the proliferation of Dorsai-related filk
have led to a kind of "urban legend" that seems get every goose-stepping,
storm trooper, security goon story that comes down the pike attributed to the
D.I. because, I guess, having a label to hang the story on helps with the
embellishment.
The plain truth is that the Dorsai Irregulars are long-time con fans who have
served repeatedly at the front lines of all sizes of con - the small locals
all the way up to the Worldcons. The majority of D.I. have Chaired a con or
been senior staff. Two have even Chaired a Worldcon. Many more have been
Department Heads or other staff at at least 10 of the last 20 Worldcons.
And most tellingly of all, aside from the fact that over 50% of the D.I. are
women (kinda shoots down the hulking goon with knuckles that drag on the floor
image) the way the organization works and brings in new members makes it 100%
certain that people with ego problems or jackboot mentalities will never make
it past the door.
Conventions that use Dorsai for Ops, logistics or access control get mature
fans who will show up on time and do what they are expected to do - and then
some. And the cons ask them back, year after year. Apparently both you and Mr.
Farber just don't like the word "security" despite acknowledging the need for
something which fits the description and also, apparently, neither of you can
acknowledge that fen can organize to perform such a function without
projecting your own shibboleths about authoritarianism onto them.
Your statement couldn't go without challenge since, by the kind of circular
argument I've seen too often, "if the stories weren't true, why do they
exist?". They exist, Mr. Deckert, because unless someone like yourself puts
them in print they never get rebutted by someone who knows better.
Chris Meredith - cmer...@frontier.canrem.com
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
>Sf cons have always done well at policing themselves, and have never,
>ever, had "security" departments until this sort of moronic idea began
>leaking over from trekkie cons to cons run by people who don't know any
>better and can't figure it out on their own.
I've only been going to cons since 1982, so I may not have a long
enough baseline for this discussion. But I want to note in passing
that many of the 100+ cons I've attended have had Security chiefs and
Security departments, often equipped with the traditional way-cool
headset radios and/or beepers, for the express purpose of handling
problems internally, rather than having to involve the hotel's
security. And most of those cons have been long-running affairs,
headed up by experienced con organizers. Rarely has Security been a
bigger problem than the problems Security is supposed to respond to.
Do you think that the name makes that much difference?
The counterargument might be this: I can think of a few cons I've
been at where they wholly neglected the _issue_ of security--something
that's a little harder to do if you've got a department called
Security on the concom.
[Of course, like any concom department, Security will be
personality-driven. If you have the wrong person setting the wrong
tone, you're going to end up with jackboots. Which, I guess, is where
the idea of hiring fannish 'professionals' comes from--the Dorsai
Irregulars have worked security contracts at several cons I've
attended, with good results. Same basic idea as bringing in
professionals to run your art show (The Team, Eh!).]
FWIW, most of my con experience has been in the Great Lakes states.
The con culture may be different here. I've heard that it's more
generally more relaxed than on the coasts. Maybe we have fewer
would-be Hammer's Slammers here...
> K-Mac
=============================================================================
| Michael Paul McDowell | Writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell, |
| 7374...@compuserve.com | author of EMPRISE, ENIGMA, EMPERY, |
| MIKE....@genie.geis.com | THIEVES OF LIGHT, ROBOT CITY: ODYSSEY, |
| POB 22066, Lansing MI 48909 | ALTERNITIES, THE QUIET POOLS, and EXILE. |
=============================================================================
| Home Page Under Construction At: http://www.greyware.com/authors/K-Mac |
=============================================================================
ECWhitley
if you've gone to the trouble of fire-proofing.--Eva
And I'll point out no one's answered the rumor about if Dragoncon has
already booked its space for Labor Day, 1998.--Eva
Gary Farber
: Gary's point was that calling a necessary job "Security" may, in his
: experience, attract the Wrong Sort Of People -- e.g. those who enjoy
: being Extremely Important, pushing people around, telling them they can't
: sit here, etc., rather than gently smoothing and protecting the working
: of the con.
: This contrasts strongly with John Harold's team at Sou'Wester in
: Liverpool, which liked to call itself the Department of Stealth and Total
: Obscurity; John half-joked that if fans noticed them in operation, they'd
: failed! All this seemed to work pretty well.
: So it's an argument about implications of the name "Security", and
: resulting attitudes, rather than the department itself.
Exactly. Thank you. As a partial sub-issue, a specific department,
under whatever name, may also not necessarily be the best way to handle
all such matters.
One fan is usually all that is necessary to hire and coordinate your
paid, uniformed "professional" guards. (In most states of the US,
off-duty cops are best for this as they will have the best training, but
this varies, and is only applicable in the US.)
Beyond, that, as I said, depending on the size of the con, you need
gophers to badge-watch at appropriate entrances, and you need some form
of roving staff to provide information, and deal with problems. This
has, since 1976, most frequently been done by an "Operations" department,
but the name, and style, of organization has many variants.
A secure con that provides for maximal safety for the con attendees must
be provided by the committee. For a large con, many problem areas must
be anticipated and dealt with in a range of ways, including room layouts,
crowd control, secure protection of function rooms with valuables (Art
Show, Huckster Room, Exhibits), emergency medical response, hotel liason,
party-quieting, enforcement of legal liability where applicable (drinking
laws, drug laws, a few others, in public areas), and various others.
Convention staff must handle all of these functions in the most tactful
way. A "Security" department is rarely the most tactful way. It is more
often counter-productive, sometimes in the extreme.
As I said, I have not been to a worldcon since the '89 NOREASCON III in
Boston (where I pulled a couple of shifts as an "operations rover," just
for old-times sake), and can't speak about subsequent worldcons.
But since the first fifty years have run reasonably well without a
"Security" department, you'll have trouble convincing me that it is
crucial that we apply the name, and seek out untrained people attracted
to the idea.
The issue of how best to organize a convention structure to deal with
these problems is a separate issue, and not what I am currently
addressing. That's a perfectly huge debate, and one that has been raging
for decades. I'm not going to get into it very far, at present.
To further clarify the history: the first cons that invented "Security
Departments" were the early Star Trek cons, in the middle Seventies,
though I can't state which ones, exactly. I was at the first three
original ST cons in NY, and gophered at a couple, but genuinely do not
recall if they started it, or it came shortly thereafter (hi, Ben, Stu,
whoever else is still around, and here).
They had to deal with a situation utterly unlike any sf con before then:
an attendence of thousands, none of whom knew the slightest thing about
sf fandom (well, a couple of hundred among the thousands did, but they're
insignificant amid the crowd), most of whom were attracted to celebrity
actor "guests" who were presented on stages, and needed body-guarding.
It wasn't until after 1975 that the real Con Explosion began to take
place in the US. Until then, the then traditional cons were, in no order:
Westercon, Philcon, Disclave, Lunacon, Midwescon, Boskone, Balticon,
and a smattering of others. I have no intention of going into a full
history of the evolution of the sf con in the US, with full dating,
time-lining, and trend analysis, at present, though I could, and perhaps
someday will. Nor do I imply that I Know All; I certainly don't. I do
know a moderate amount about the subject, though.
DISCON II in DC in 1974, chaired by Jay Haldeman, and vice-chaired by Ron
Bounds, was huge. Kansas City's MIDAMERICON in 1976, chaired by Ken
Keller, in response, took what was then one of the most controversial
decisions yet made by a worldcon, and jerked the membership price up
dramatically, from the previous high of $20, to an unheard of $50, as well
as enacting other limiting policies that caused screams, notably the
"hospital band" wrist-ID. The Columbus Motley Crew's bunch came in (hi,
Ross), and provided the nucleus of the modern operations group, although
it was in utter continuity with the Same Old Bunch of smofs, con workers,
etc., on a direct line back through to 1939.
I'm certainly not going to touch on the politics, nor, at present, go
further into the history since tens of thousands of words would be
expended in doing so.
Point is, that after that, every neo and their mamas started running home and
beginning their own con, usually with little idea as to what it was about,
or how to do it, except by trying to recreate the forms that they had seen
at their first worldcon. Then people inspired by _those_ cons, etc.
Trouble ensued, as bad writers say, and practices began to leak over into
these neo-cons from the ever-exploding growth of commerical media/Star
Trek conventions, including this invention of "Security," which was
inspired by the STAR TREK tv show's "Security" guys in red shirts.
(This _really_ makes one wonder about who would volunteer, eh?)
I'm not convinced that Yang the Nauseating's (Robert "Bob" Lynn Aspirin)
DORSAI IRREGULARS group, and the Klingon groups that then started hiring
themselves out as mercenary "security" to these new cons was a helpful
development, but that's a somewhat separate issue I don't care to
currently go back into.
By the early Eighties, the issue was lost. There were now over one
hundred new cons, almost all run by people who had been around for less
than ten years, and hardly anybody knew any better any more.
Thus, now, many "old-time" conventions with a heritage of fifteen, or
twenty years, that have "traditions" of Security, and whatnot.
In no way am I tarring, as a mass, many of the fine people who have
worked at, or organized, these Security Departments. Many of them are
highly competent, fine, trustworty, wonderful folk, who are terrific at
what they do. They are in no way responsible for not knowing the history
of what they are doing, or why the structures they are operating under
are somewhat antithetical to the tradition of sf fandom.
I have asked many of these people to work with me, back in the days before
I Retired from all this, in the early Eighties. Please don't take
personal insult as a "Security" staffer, because you would be missing my
point. Many of the people who work, run, or organize, "Security
Departments" at modern sf cons are great people who do a terrific job. It
is not their fault that they are working with what I believe to be a poor
paridigm.
I am merely urging people to consider how they conceptualize their
organizing principles for their conventions, and not mindlessly have a
"Security Department" with people running around as "Security" staff just
because "it's what we've always done," and "we have to have that, don't we?"
No, you don't. There other ways to organize, and other names to use.
Yes, I do think names are important. Words are critical; they are our
conceptual tools.
And, again, consider whom, too often, is attracted to the idea of giving
orders to people, rather than otherwise volunteering to help in other areas.
If you _must_ have "Security" departments, try this: take everyone who
volunteered to help out with, say, baby-sitting and registration, and make
_them_ do "security," jobs, and have the people who have volunteered to
be "Security" staff work at. . . well, the exercise is left to the reader.
If you insist on taking personal offense at this as an insult to everyone
who has worked for a "Security" Department in the last twenty years, you
are misreading my intent. Given that I put in some years at performing
these functions, along with a number of my good friends, you would have
to conclude that I am insulting myself, and a horde of friends whom I
respect.
I can't help people who misread me that way.
Here endeth the lesson.
Chris Croughton
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk "David G. Bell" writes:
>At the Eastercon last year, in Liverpool, the con employed some
>_professional_ security guards to control access to the convention -- I
>think only on Saturday night.
I believe it was every day, and I gather that they weren't provided just
for the con but are a group the hotel has used in the past.
> didn't hear of any problems with them,
>though I have heard a few stories about problems with hotel employees.
At Sou'Wester? I haven't heard anything, so it can't have been that
bad. And as justification, apparently the only case of theft reported
was someone who left their bag in one of the bars, and it was gone when
they came back. Not exactly surprising! In contrast to porevious
years, when they have had problem with people buying one-day memberships
at the door just to steal from the con (Sou'Wester had a policy of "no
walk-ins unless you can get someone in the con to vouch for you", which
was advertised well in advance and seemed to work fine).
>In the more distant past, where the hotel had a public Nightclub outside
>the convention area, one or two of the Nightclub security staff, aka
>bouncers, were a bit of a problem. Maybe incompatible cultures, but I
>heard the story from one of the people involved, and she was _not_ happy
>with their social skills.
The hotel were made aware of that, and that's why they now employ the
new firm, all of whom are ex-military personnel...
>There is a difference between access control, and policing the
>convention itself.
Definitely, and I agree with other posts on that - calling a group of
fans "security" is asking for trouble...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Pam Wells
7374...@compuserve.com "Michael P. Kube-McDowell" writes:
> Do you think that the name makes that much difference?
Yes.
--
Pam Wells
Gary Farber
<snip>
: The Dorsai Irregulars, formed in 1974 with the blessing of Gordon R. Dickson,
: "Project Artshow", the travelling Artshow that was the precurser to the
: artshows that nowadays are fixtures at conventions everywhere.
I must work from memory, as my relevant fanzines, con stuff, and records
are in storage, but I think your history is slightly confused. I think
that the last worldcon art show that was "Project Art Show," was in the
late Sixties, either the 1969 ST.LOUISCON, or the 1968 BAYCON, or
possibly even TRICON in 1966.
Please note that Dan brought the DI into this, not I.
I doubt, however, that Dan's use of the single word "excesses" constitutes
a "smear." You have to be extremely defensive on the topic to react to
his comment that way. Descending to personal abuse seems unnecessary to
civil discussion, though it's easy for any of us to give in to the
temptation. Keep in mind that you're trying to convince people of your
ability to deal tactfully with people and their problems, y'know?
Also remember that it is both typical, and the easiest thing in the world,
to stereotype people from afar. Many a dumb fan feud has arisen between
people across the country (or ocean) because they don't really know the
people involved, and are prone to mistaken assumptions.
<more snip>
: Those exploits and the proliferation of Dorsai-related filk
: have led to a kind of "urban legend" that seems get every goose-stepping,
: storm trooper, security goon story that comes down the pike attributed to the
: D.I. because, I guess, having a label to hang the story on helps with the
: embellishment.
This is inevitable when you adopt a martial identity to present to
people, and wear a militaristic uniform. It is the territory you have
chosen.
<more snippage>
: Apparently both you and Mr.
: Farber just don't like the word "security" despite acknowledging the need for
: something which fits the description
Exactly.
: and also, apparently, neither of you can
: acknowledge that fen can organize to perform such a function without
: projecting your own shibboleths about authoritarianism onto them.
No, not really. It depends how you organize. I distinctly question the
wisdom of organizing a separate body of uniformed fans devoted to
"security" issues, yes.
I could question why it is that at the same time the DI was founded, fans
didn't get together to form an organized, uniformed squad of child care
workers, or logistics carriers, or registrars, but that goes off into
areas I am not interested in pursuing.
I like and respect the Stopa's, and other DI individuals just fine. I'm
glad that you feel that you are working with calm, mature people who keep
their heads in a crisis.
: Your statement couldn't go without challenge since, by the kind of circular
: argument I've seen too often, "if the stories weren't true, why do they
: exist?". They exist, Mr. Deckert, because unless someone like yourself puts
: them in print they never get rebutted by someone who knows better.
What story was it that Dan Deckert put into print?
I'm sorry you are personally offended. Since you are not a jackbooted,
fascist goon wannabe, you need not be, you know.
Dr Gafia
("David Langford") writes:
>Well, I can remember (though not at first hand) the fabulous fannish
>catchphrase "Dave Kyle says you can't sit here." But not just where.
NyCon II, 1956, to the "balcony insurgents" (which included Boyd Raeburn
and
Ted White, among others)--the convention was taking a nosedive into the
red
because Kyle had over-promised the high-priced banquet. The balcony
insurgents were people who didn't buy the expensive rubber chicken but
wanted
to hear the Hugo results and speeches. Kyle apparently felt anyone
inpecuneous enough not to be able to help bail him out by attending the
banquet didn't deserve to hear them; he sent someone to tell them, "Dave
Kyle
says you can't sit here."
It got a good laugh at the time. But maybe you had to *be there*.
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Adam M. Lipkin
: crap on its members? It's one thing, for, say, Circlet Press (a small
: press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
: PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
: like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
: Worldcon I would ever support
This is the second time someone has mentioned porn stars at the con. If
they were there, they sure weren't prominent. Are you possibly referring
to the booth at which Brinke Stevens and Monique <I forgot her last name>
appeared? While they are b-movie stars, they are not porn stars (to the
best of my knowledge), and many, if not all, of the films they've been in
are sci-fi, if not good. While I might question the taste of their
presence, it's hard to justify not having them at the con, especially
when Circlet and others were there.
If there was another booth with regular porn stars, please ignore the
above, natch.
Adam Lipkin ali...@emory.edu
______________________________________________________________
"And now our young hero finds himself uttering one of the
least-used sentences in the English language:
Who Threw That Buick?"
--Static
--
The above opinions do not represent the Emory Bookstore or the Emory
Computer Store.
ly...@access2.digex.net
Everyone should note that Dave Kyle himself offers a different version of
why those not at the banquet were not allowed to be in the room to hear
the speeches: it involved the fire marshall. Dave turned out to be an
easy target, but before shooting off at the hip on this, rich, I think
you should spend the time to review *all* what has been written.
BTW, Dave's article on that appeared in an issue of MIMOSA which my
records show you *did* receive...
RWL
Paul W. Cashman
>And I'll point out no one's answered the rumor about if Dragoncon has
>already booked its space for Labor Day, 1998.--Eva
We have options on either Labor Day Weekend or a weekend in June
(presumably the second, since due to the Olympics DC is shifting to
June next year and thereafter). As far as I know, this applies to
both hotel space (Westin, Hyatt Regency, etc.) and the Atlanta Market
Center.
--Paul, Director, Pre-Con Publications (big program book and PRs)
--
Paul W. Cashman, van...@crl.com Rush Dream Theater Queensryche
------------------------------- Metallica Hawkwind Enya Ministry
Mutha's Day Out Sisters of Mercy Dead Can Dance Blue Oyster Cult
"You see me locked in my closet / That's where I'll make my stand..."
Dan Deckert
>twinkled. Good deal.
>
Fannish reputations are so often the result of misinformation and
hidden agendas, that I don't pay them much heed myself. I don't
know if I've got one, and I don't really care.
Dan Deckert
ddec...@ufsmain.win.net
GPMephan
(Cassandra) wrote:
> >
> my own security gripe: i was not only working at DC, but I also was staying
> in a room at the Hilton. late saturday night/early sunday morning, several
> friends of mine (many of whom were also workers and/or guests at the hilton)
> decided to sit around and talk. that's it. we were talking, not drinking,
> dancing, doing drugs, or playing loud music. we were doing this in the
> 'space lounge', which was just right down the hall form my room. two or
> three security people decided that they had to stand on the floor to monitor
> us at all times, and we watched as security people circled 'round from higher
> up floors to descend upon us, since we were such a threat. i know from
> being on that floor that the acoustics don't travel towards the rooms, so
> we couldn't have been disturbing people. when, in fact, one guy came to
> check badges/room keys, one of my companions, who by this time was quite fed
> up with being monitored, pulled out every piece of id he owned....the
> 'security' guy responded by asking if we would like to see his permit to
> carry concealed weapons, etc....
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you were not in a "convention" area
of the hotel, such as a meeting room, exhibition area, etc., these jerks
had absolutely no authority to check badges, room keys, or anything else.
Who the hell do they think they are, anyway? The hotel security folks
might have reason to check for a room key, but it is not con security's
business. I wonder if they hassled any non-convention hotel guests in
hallways or stairwells? I'm sure the hotel would be thrilled about that!
>
> it got so ridiculous, every time one of the security people walked by we'd
> start humming "Vader's theme" (or whatever it's called) from star wars, and
> pretend the security were saying things into their walkie-talkies like "Lord
> Vader, I think they're on to us", "Sector 12 is occupied, lord vader",
> "nothing to report, lord vader, should i start shooting some ewoks?"
>
> no, really, we _weren't_ drinking. we're just weird. :)
>
> --
--
GPMephan
Gary Farber
: As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you were not in a "convention" area
: of the hotel, such as a meeting room, exhibition area, etc., these jerks
: had absolutely no authority to check badges, room keys, or anything else.
: Who the hell do they think they are, anyway? The hotel security folks
: might have reason to check for a room key, but it is not con security's
: business.
This is not precisely correct.
Any convention staffer has as much legal right to ask any kind of question
of anyone as they desire. First Amendment (in US territory, of course,
and the usual escape clauses, yes, Avedon).
How you respond is another matter.
A convention staffer may have a legal right to request that a badge
that serves as identification for admittance to a convention be turned
over to them, regardless of where the conversation taking place.
Duly constituted authorities of the convention have the right to have
anyone ejected from official areas of the con. To some degree, in some
areas, hotel security personnel will have legal rights to eject you from
their property.
All of this can get rather fuzzy depending on your state laws. I leave
closer analysis to the lawyers among us, of whom, though I have done
paralegal work, barely, I am not one.
As a matter of courtesy, and humanity, I recommend civil discourse among
all concerned parties when questions arise among convention staff,
convention members, and hotel staff.
Or, you can punch out the Banquet Manager.
Joseph W. Casey
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) writes:
> Paul W. Cashman (van...@crl.com) confided:
>
> To bang again on one of my favorite gongs, there is simply no excuse for
> any science-fiction convention to have a "security" department, or
> personnel. Committee members of various ilk to discreetly handle
> problems, yes. Competent, known people to troubleshoot problems under
> some discreet title, yes.
>
> offering a fugghead magnet. The only alternative I would suggest is
> creating a "security" department, and then sending everyone who
> volunteers across town in a bus.
As someone who has worked security for many years, both professionally and
as a volunteer, I take great offense at the above. The job of security is
to secure a convention. This includes badging, checking for weapons,
quieting parties and patroling the dealers room for shoplifting. All of
which, in my local juristiction anyway, are jobs that can be delegated by
conventions to volunteers.
> Sf cons have always done well at policing themselves, and have never,
> ever, had "security" departments until this sort of moronic idea began
> leaking over from trekkie cons to cons run by people who don't know any
> better and can't figure it out on their own.
SF cons, when they were small, had little problem 'policing themselves'.
However, as the size grew, you were bound to attract a bad group. There
are, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, persons outthere
who prey on others. BTW, I has been working security at conventions long
before I knew there were Star Trek conventions.
Before I started working and running, security at conventions there were
thefts from the dealers, there were people being assaulted in the
hallways, there were miriad complaints from hotels about noisy parties and
drunken underage attendees. Now, I'm not saying the we, by which I mean
security, has put an end to all of these problems, but I believe we have
helped to cut them down to an extent.
> Words are important, as are functional distinctions. We need gophers to
> watch at doors for badges? I've always preferred to call them "gophers,"
> or "badge-watchers." Anything that doesn't give people delusions of
> authority.
I've always found this suggesting vastly amusing. Were I planning on
crashing a convention and the only stumbling block was a twelve year old
kid standing beside the doors I would love it. Many, even most, would just
breaze by the kid and ignore him. That is why you need security near by.
Someone who can stop the trespasser, and have no doubt that is what this
person is. In this case the appointed representative of the lessee of the
premisses is with legal rights to use reasonable physical force to stop
the trespasser.
> An anecdote was posted about Dragoncon "security" stopping people on the
> stairwells. I wonder if it occurred to anyone involved that no con
> worker has the slightest legal authority to detain, or compel any sort of
> action upon, anyone. That anyone should take this nonsense seriously is
> frightening. That a con committee should organize things this way is
> more frightening. That such a con committee wants to bid for a worldcon
> is appalling.
Believe it or not, here is something we agree on. Security personel MUST
be informed that they have no authority outside of rented premisses (I
know that's spelled wrong but I can't find my dictionary at the moment.).
Any member of my staff that attempted such a move would find themselves
walking home as soon as I found out about it!
Joseph W. Casey
--
Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
Dan Deckert
In article <3uu9hj$r...@data.interserv.net>, Michael P. Kube-McDowell (7374...@compuserve.com) writes:
>I've only been going to cons since 1982, so I may not have a long
>enough baseline for this discussion. But I want to note in passing
>that many of the 100+ cons I've attended have had Security chiefs and
>Security departments, often equipped with the traditional way-cool
>headset radios and/or beepers, for the express purpose of handling
>problems internally, rather than having to involve the hotel's
>security. And most of those cons have been long-running affairs,
>headed up by experienced con organizers. Rarely has Security been a
>bigger problem than the problems Security is supposed to respond to.
>
>Do you think that the name makes that much difference?
I thought that Gary had been pretty clear about this, though I may
just be projecting because we're in agreement on this point.
Certainly, conventions must have security, and typically many
forms of it. When you're running a con and somebody walks up and
volunteers to do "Security," they often are particularly unsuited
to provide the security functions that cons really need.
This is not to say that you can't pull together a bunch of
competent people to perform these functions and call them
"Security." Many cons do this with good success. They typically
know these volunteers and their capabilities well in advance.
Dragon*Con, was, however, another example of how simply calling a
group of volunteers "Security" does not make them competent to
fulfill those functions. Indeed, it can tend to give them delusions
of adequacy that will encourage them to step in where they're
neither needed or effective.
>FWIW, most of my con experience has been in the Great Lakes states.
>The con culture may be different here. I've heard that it's more
>generally more relaxed than on the coasts. Maybe we have fewer
>would-be Hammer's Slammers here...
I wouldn't doubt this, though things haven't been too bad around
here since we stopped calling our security functionaries
"Security." We now tend to get dedicated people who want to work
to make the con a better place rather than to exercise their own
concepts of authority.
Dan Deckert
Head, Services Division
(Which Doesn't Include Security)
L.A.con III, the 1996 Worldcon
ddec...@ufsmain.win.net
Dan Deckert
>Great, but should a committee that claims to be bidding for a World Science
>Fiction convention, which IS a literary convention, be pushing this kind of
>crap on its members? It's one thing, for, say, Circlet Press (a small
>press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
>PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
>like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
>Worldcon I would ever support
While I'm not supporting (and would not support, after last
weekend's experiences) the Atlanta Worldcon bid, I think that the
issue of what was and wasn't in the dealers room has been rather
overblown. The "porn star" (who apparently does "amateur" videos)
was barely evident, and the rest of the stuff (in smaller
quantities) would have been right at home at any Loscon (a
fundamentally literary s-f con) of the past few years. Tables
go to the people who are willing to pay for them, and many
dealers have misjudged their potential sales and bought tables
at the wrong cons over the years. Much better to attack the real
errors of judgement seen in the Hilton Basement, like the tiny
aisle size, lack of room organization, squeezed Art Show, etc.
Dan Deckert
Head, Service Division
Joseph W. Casey
>
> There is all the difference in the world between _providing_ security,
> and _calling yourself_ "Security."
I call myself security because that is the job that I do.
>
> One is a necessary goal to be accomplished. The other is
> self-aggrandizing power-tripping. Understand?
And blathering on about all the things you have done in the distant past
is what, being humble. In case you haven't caught on yet you are out of
touch. Many things have changed in the time you've been away. Catch up and
then talk.
>
> By the way, there are no sf cons in NYC; haven't been for years now.
> Not fannish ones, anyway.
Wonder why!
Gary Farber
: As someone who has worked security for many years, both professionally and
: as a volunteer, I take great offense at the above.
I'm sorry that you take offense. I think you need not, but it's up to you.
: BTW, I has been working security at conventions long
: before I knew there were Star Trek conventions.
The first STAR TREK CON was in NYC in 1972. It had over five thousand
people, a feature article in TV GUIDE, and considerable nationwide
publicity. You were working before then, or you were ignorant?
: > Words are important, as are functional distinctions. We need gophers to
: > watch at doors for badges? I've always preferred to call them "gophers,"
: > or "badge-watchers." Anything that doesn't give people delusions of
: > authority.
: I've always found this suggesting vastly amusing. Were I planning on
: crashing a convention and the only stumbling block was a twelve year old
: kid standing beside the doors I would love it.
Please point out to me where I said anything about a twelve year old
kid? You and I are free to volunteer as gophers, as is anybody. Doesn't
sound very important, or threatening, though, does it?
: Many, even most, would just
: breaze by the kid and ignore him. That is why you need security near by.
: Someone who can stop the trespasser, and have no doubt that is what this
: person is.
We may be, to some people, merely having an unimportant quibble about
names, but words are our primary form of communication -- if they were
not important, why object to *not* being called "security?"
In fact, what someone watching a door needs is the ability to twitch a
limb to signal that they need help, preferably from your paid, uniformed
security, who are preferably off-duty police as they have the best odds of
having the best training in minimal force and their legal constraints.
This is the minimal requirement, along with sense and tact.
: In this case the appointed representative of the lessee of the
: premisses is with legal rights to use reasonable physical force to stop
: the trespasser.
This would not be my preferred response. I would prefer that no member
of my staff, or any convention staff, decide they are called upon to use
any physical force save to defend themselves, or others. I would rather
momentarily lose a trespasser in a large function area, who will be quickly
spotted and challenged without a badge before very long, in any case.
I have, incidentally, had fans volunteer to work "security" for me who
thoughtfully brought their own illegally concealed loaded pistols. One
who did so under circumstances of working for a subgroup only technically
under me, and whose staffing I had little say over without extreme cause,
handed his over to a thirteen-year-old who was manning a desk (there were
political problems preventing me from exercising direct authority over
this subgroup without extreme reasons; long story) and told her to "sit on
it" while he went off shift. She did. Until my vice-operations head
found out, removed the weapon (which had a bullet in the chamber), and
temporarily placed it in our safe. State law was later explained to the
gentleman by the head of hotel security who was not amused.
I have had other fans, including "Heads of Security" elaborate long
plans for, or volunteer to be, armed (with handguns) "security" at
doors. I've always wondered if they thought shooting into the middle of
the huckster room was the proper mode for removing trespassers. (And, as
we know, if you draw your weapon, you should intend to use it, and if you
intend to use it, you should probably use it with intent to kill.)
Please be clear that I am in no way imputing such views, or anything
resembling them, to you, Joseph Casey, or anyone reading this who does
not volunteer to offer them. I am merely offering a colorful anecdote.
: Believe it or not, here is something we agree on. Security personel MUST
: be informed that they have no authority outside of rented premisses (I
: know that's spelled wrong but I can't find my dictionary at the moment.).
: Any member of my staff that attempted such a move would find themselves
: walking home as soon as I found out about it!
I am delighted that we can have a civilized agreement on something.
Thank you. Let us have more of them.
Gary Farber
: > self-aggrandizing power-tripping. Understand?
: And blathering on about all the things you have done in the distant past
: is what, being humble. In case you haven't caught on yet you are out of
: touch. Many things have changed in the time you've been away. Catch up and
: then talk.
No, I would not label myself as humble. Yes, I would say that there have
been numerous times in my life when I have been guilty of
self-aggrandizing power-tripping. I try not to be, and would love to
believe that I never had been, but I would be deceiving myself if I
thought that. I'm a highly flawed human, yup.
The last worldcon I worked at was NOREASCON III in 1989. You are welcome
to inform me of what has changed since then. You are otherwise free to
ignore my postings, or killfile me. I assure you that I will not take
offense.
: > By the way, there are no sf cons in NYC; haven't been for years now.
: > Not fannish ones, anyway.
: Wonder why!
Hotel costs, mainly. Lunacon is currently held in Rye, NY.
Seth Breidbart
>Fannish reputations are so often the result of misinformation and
>hidden agendas, that I don't pay them much heed myself. I don't
>know if I've got one,
I have quite a few; would you like one of mine?
> and I don't really care.
I guess not.
Seth
KELLY
wrote:
LJA>Hostile, inept staff; dealers' feeling duped; under-budgeted con suite;
LJA>events you couldn't attend even with a full membership;
LJA>-- anybody want to tell their experiences?
How about elaborating a bit about yours. I really can't get any feel
for what you think was wrong with the convention unless you get a bit
more specific than three lines.
Kelly
KELLY
EC>I'll repeat what someone else here said: You don't have to put out fires
EC>if you've gone to the trouble of fire-proofing.--Eva
Show me the SF Convention that has no problems, and it will the very
first one in history. We did have a large number of very visible
problems this year - no denying that - but we ARE trying to make things
a lot more "fire-proof" for next year.
EC>And I'll point out no one's answered the rumor about if Dragoncon has
EC>already booked its space for Labor Day, 1998.--Eva
If the Atlanta bid wins, there will be no Dragon*Con held at all in 1998.
If the Baltimore bid wins, Dragon*Con will be held Labor Day weekend,
since the Baltimore Worldcon will be held in August due to the
unavailility of the Baltimore Convention Center.
If the Boston or Niagara Falls bid wins, Dragon*Con has several back-up
dates on second-call so that we will not be the same weekend as the
Worldcon.
And if None-Of-The-Above wins, we will hold the convention in the newly
frozen Hell (which is what would happen in NOTA wins).
Ulrika O'Brien
>This contrasts strongly with John Harold's team at Sou'Wester in
>Liverpool, which liked to call itself the Department of Stealth and >Total
>Obscurity; John half-joked that if fans noticed them in operation, >they'd failed! All this seemed to work pretty well.
I love this name! Definitely less likely to attract swaggering young
hooligans in skin-tight black leather. (Hmmm. Wonder how I can get my
room at my next con advertised as the volunteers office for
"security"...) <g>
--Ulrika
P Nielsen Hayden
: crap on its members? It's one thing, for, say, Circlet Press (a small
: press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
: PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
: like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
: Worldcon I would ever support
You're right. I mean, it's one thing to tolerate "erotica," but I
understand Boskone recently had as one of their guests a woman known for
having edited a line of _pornographic books_. And NESFA even published a
collection of her essays! C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure
doesn't sound like the sort of con I want to attend. Measures should be
Taken.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.interport.net/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Karen Cooper
>--
>Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
>may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
>ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
>Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
tells us:
>I call myself security because that is the job that I do.
Sooo, Joseph. You're posting out of Ottawa. Please name the conventions
you work security on, so that we can avoid or flock to them, as our
temperments lead us.
Karen.
--
Oh, good. You're awake.
David G. Bell
Dorsai Irregulars can avoid the problem of the power-crazed security
goon. For an organisation to last so long, they must be doing something
right.
Security is something which depends on being able to trust the people
doing the work. British fandom doesn't have the organised groups,
AFAIK, but there is a core of regulars who keep appearing at Eastercons.
At least, for things like medical emergency staff, there are well-known
organisations which train people, and certify their skills. You can ask
people if they have first-aid qualifications. On the Security side,
British fandom is maybe small enough for informal personal contact to
work as a selection process.
The danger is surely when a convention calls for volunteers, and for
some reason does not pick and choose sufficiently well.
-- David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) writes:
>>
>> If I came into fandom as a neo, wanted to find out more, and found that
>> the way to do it was through the "Klingon Assault Group," I'd nod
>> politely, and back quickly away, thank you very much.
>If being greeted by this group of people is enough to drive you away
>from fandom then all I can say is good riddance!
I've found Joseph Casey a pleasant and intelligent contributor to this
group, but this doesn't impress me much.
Gary Farber is making the unexceptionable observation that some people are
bothered by having convention security run by people in paramilitary
costumes. If this is news to Joseph Casey, it may be because his great size
and forbidding aspect, about which he has been at pains to tell us all, has
discouraged people from remarking on this in his vicinity.
Over time I have become a lot more tolerant of Klingons and Dorsai and the
like as social clubs, to a great extent because I've come to understand a
lot more about what some people get out of this kind of fantasy role-playing
-- come to understand that, whatever it is, it has very little to do with
actual matters of power and authority in the literal, mundane sense.
And yet I can't escape the sense, when I see people like this being given
"security" jobs, that I have been co-opted into the role of serving as a
prop in their fantasy. I don't like this sense, even when I find the
fantasy unobjectionable.
This is what Gary is trying to get at, and it's earning him some
extraordinarily belligerent responses. It's too bad, because this is a
"boundary issue," if you will, that deserves thoughtful discussion.
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
>> Do you think that the name makes that much difference?
>Yes.
Well, you make an eloquent, persuasive, and ultimately irrefutable
argument. I concede the field to you. <g>
> K-Mac
=============================================================================
| Michael Paul McDowell | Writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell, |
| 7374...@compuserve.com | author of EMPRISE, ENIGMA, EMPERY, |
| MIKE....@genie.geis.com | THIEVES OF LIGHT, ROBOT CITY: ODYSSEY, |
| POB 22066, Lansing MI 48909 | ALTERNITIES, THE QUIET POOLS, and EXILE. |
=============================================================================
| Home Page Under Construction At: http://www.greyware.com/authors/K-Mac |
=============================================================================
Gary Farber
: It all sounds to me as if a 'Security' department at an American
: convention _needs_ that name, if only to reassure the site operators.
What the committe needs to reassure the hotel is a competent hotel
liason, and a competent staff. They also tend to be prejudiced towards
people they think of as "normal."
You are correct that relevant US state laws can vary significantly on
many matters that affect cons: drinking laws alone, just to start.
David G. Bell
am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA "Joseph W. Casey" writes:
> Believe it or not, here is something we agree on. Security personel MUST
> be informed that they have no authority outside of rented premisses (I
> know that's spelled wrong but I can't find my dictionary at the moment.).
> Any member of my staff that attempted such a move would find themselves
> walking home as soon as I found out about it!
What I've heard, there can sometimes be quite significant differences in
local law within the USA that can affect a convention -- not just what
the Convention can do, but what is lawful for convention members to do.
Some small convention in California, 3 or 4 years back, had serious
problems with the attitude of the _hotel's_ security staff.
It all sounds to me as if a 'Security' department at an American
convention _needs_ that name, if only to reassure the site operators.
BTW, the Worldcon will be operating under _Scottish_ law.
Stuart C. Hellinger
: What the committe needs to reassure the hotel is a competent hotel
: liason, and a competent staff. They also tend to be prejudiced towards
: people they think of as "normal."
: You are correct that relevant US state laws can vary significantly on
: many matters that affect cons: drinking laws alone, just to start.
Gary has brought up many important points. I really don't want to get
into this argument, but past and current experience constantly shows that
"Security" people are not the best people to control convention problems
and more often than not create as many new ones as they solve, plus
terrible animosity towards the con.
It's all in the head of the department and the way they instruct the
staff. They also have to have the balls to deal quickly with any staff
members that go against policy.
The DI, though they can be very visible are excellent at this.
Good convention security is invisible except when needed, even if all the
end up doing is answering an occasional question and pointing people in
the right direction.
Politeness counts.
Lessons can be given if you do not understand. It makes for a much better
convention for all.
-SCH! (Stuart C. Hellinger s...@panix.com)
Stuart C. Hellinger
: > > Maybe DragonCon just tried to hold too many cons under one roof.
: > That's what I like about Dragon; it's not just a media convention or a
: > literary convention - it incorporates a lot of stuff that you normally don't
: > see. I get rather irritated at people griping because there were things there
: > that they weren't interested in. I've never cared for filking, bondage, or
: > live action role-playing, but you know what? I just don't participate in it.
: Great, but should a committee that claims to be bidding for a World Science
: Fiction convention, which IS a literary convention, be pushing this kind of
: crap on its members? It's one thing, for, say, Circlet Press (a small
: press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
: PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
: like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
: Worldcon I would ever support
Okay all you non-attenders and attenders - WHAT PORN STARS? You got
names? Sorry folks, there were none.
Or does fandom have a new prudish definition of porn?
Dr Gafia
<Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <3uu9hj$r...@data.interserv.net>
> 7374...@compuserve.com "Michael P. Kube-McDowell" writes:
>
>> Do you think that the name makes that much difference?
>
>Yes.
But would not a rose, by any other name, smell just as sweet? Or are we
inclined, in this instance, to say Maybe Not?
--rich brown
Laurie D. T. Mann
> I'll repeat what someone else here said: You don't have to put out fires
> And I'll point out no one's answered the rumor about if Dragoncon has
> already booked its space for Labor Day, 1998.--Eva
Frankly, I hope they have. It would make a Worldcon in Baltimore
so much more pleasant that year....
Laurie D. T. Mann
OOOOOOPPPPPSSSS, forgot about the date change when I responded. As I said
months ago, I'm glad a US Worldcon is finally bidding off of Labor Day
weekend.
(And, Dan, I had griped about all that other stuff (2nd hand, since
I wasn't there), but the porn star just went beyond the pale. And, Patrick,
I nominated T based on her writing (which I like), not on her editing of
comics or porn (neither of which I'm likely to read).)
Laurie Mann * lm...@telerama.lm.com * http://worcester.lm.com/lmann/index.html
*A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants. --Chuckles*
**************ServiceWare Database Wrangler and CyberLibrarian****************
SJ. Brewster
: You are correct that relevant US state laws can vary significantly on
: many matters that affect cons: drinking laws alone, just to start.
One of the greatest sensawunda shocks I ever had at a convention
was at BaCon in Cambridge last year; the 'culturally-different' young
Americans who were sharing New Hall with us (they were 'doing Europe')
had been conditioned to a quite incredible (to me) degree against
drinking alcohol. Anyone on the trip who was found with alcohol
would be sent home, no quibbling. Naturally many of us saw this
as an interesting challenge... Whereas in Britain, under-age drinking
happens, is widely understood to happen, and no-one really minds
as long as there's no violence.
--
Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk ! Room 4.9, Department of Mathematics,
-------------------------------! University of Bristol,
http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb ! City and County of Bristol, United Kingdom,
(under construction, sort of) ! BS8 1TW. Tel: 0117 928 7990.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Different issue. There are certainly folks in SF who have published
>pornography, including such big names as Farmer and Malzberg. However,
>they are also (primarily) SF writers. From the descriptions I've heard
>(and I admit this is all second hand) Dragoncon had folks that were
>just porn stars, with no relationship to SF or fandom at all. Frankly,
>I'd rather not see cons get invovled with that kind of crap either.
If Laurie was objecting to the ee-vial smut professionals being (allegedly)
featured as guests, she should have said that. What she posted was a
categorical condemnation of having these people around at all, delivered in
tones of well-I-never outrage. Excuse me very much for not putting the most
benevolent possible interpretation on her remarks.
David E Romm
> Fannish reputations are so often the result of misinformation and
> hidden agendas, that I don't pay them much heed myself. I don't
> know if I've got one, and I don't really care.
You can have mine. I'm not using it.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
New! Improved! Now with sound files!
David G. Bell
kur...@tardis.ed.ac.uk "Steve Glover" writes:
> In article <806490...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,
> Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >(And furthermore I believe that every Eastercon should be in the Adelphi.)
>
> Attenda est Adelphi?
Metropole delenda est?
Stuart C. Hellinger
: While I will admit I have guilty of some belligerent comments, I must say
: that I am not the only one. Several ofthe comments made about people who
: work security in general have been very offensive and I hve been
: responding in kind to them.
: I will say it again. I will accept any one who will accept me. However, if
: you start insulting me or my people I will respond.
It is comments like these that prove that in reality you are highly
unqualified to work in a "security"/operations position at a science
fiction convention.
People wanting photos taken with you at Creation has absolutely nothing
to do with this discussion.
Stuart C. Hellinger
: Different issue. There are certainly folks in SF who have published
: they are also (primarily) SF writers. From the descriptions I've heard
: (and I admit this is all second hand) Dragoncon had folks that were
: just porn stars, with no relationship to SF or fandom at all. Frankly,
: I'd rather not see cons get invovled with that kind of crap either.
Let's get something straight and apparentlt the only way to do that is to
club some people over their head with this:
THERE WERE NO PORN STARS AT THE NASFiC/DRAGCON*CON!
Does this have to be repeated again?
Personally, I'd rather that cons and the people involved with them stop
being involve with lying, rumor mongering and a lot of the crap that
constantly goes on.
When did fandom become so full of closed minded fuggheads that we all
used to complain about.
Jim_...@transarc.com
> : press that publishes amusing, erotic SF) to be in the dealer's room, but
> : PORN STARS? C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound
> : like the sort of con I want to attend, and it certainly isn't the sort of
> : Worldcon I would ever support
>
> understand Boskone recently had as one of their guests a woman known for
> having edited a line of _pornographic books_. And NESFA even published a
> collection of her essays! C'mon, what kind of sense is THAT? It sure
> doesn't sound like the sort of con I want to attend. Measures should be
> Taken.
>
pornography, including such big names as Farmer and Malzberg. However,
they are also (primarily) SF writers. From the descriptions I've heard
(and I admit this is all second hand) Dragoncon had folks that were
just porn stars, with no relationship to SF or fandom at all. Frankly,
I'd rather not see cons get invovled with that kind of crap either.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Evelyn C. Leeper
KELLY <ke...@lightspeed.com> wrote:
> In a recent message, lm...@telerama.lm.com (Laurie D. T. Mann) wrote:
> >Fiction convention, which IS a literary convention, be pushing this kind of
> >crap on its members?
>
> am personally sick of all the people complaining that only "literary"
> things have a place in a SF convention - as if comics, games, and media
> have no SF influence. This is a very narrow-minded attitude, and
> labeling it "crap" shows a very strong negative bias.
While one person's crap is another person's art (or something like that),
Laurie has a point:
CONSTITUTION of the World Science Fiction Society,
September 1994
Article I -- Name, Objectives, Membership, and Organization
Section 1.1: The name of this organization shall be the World Science
Fiction Society, hereinafter referred to as WSFS or the Society.
Section 1.2: WSFS is an unincorporated literary society whose
functions are:
1.2.1: To choose the recipients of the annual Hugo Awards
(Science Fiction Achievement Awards).
1.2.2: To choose the locations and Committees for the annual
World Science Fiction Conventions (hereinafter referred to as
Worldcons).
1.2.3: To attend those Worldcons.
1.2.4: To choose the locations and Committees for the occasional
North American Science Fiction Conventions (hereinafter referred to
as NASFiCs).
1.2.5: To perform such other activities as may be necessary or
incidental to the above purposes.
While strictly speaking, the WSFS does not run the Worldcons, it is
clear that they are very tightly connected to the WSFS, and so should
presumably display the "literary" focus that is the purpose of the
WSFS.
If you think this focus is wrong--and I'm sure the Constitution was
written behind the waves of films, graphic novels, television,
etc.--then you should propose an amendment to the Constitution, not
complain that Laurie is narrow-minded.
I don't think Laurie--or anyone else--is proposing that everything but
literary pursuits be barred from Worldcon. (Hell, even the WSFS
Constitution recognizes dramatic presentations and artwork, in the form
of designating Hugo Awards for them.) But suggesting that a Worldcon
committee may have erred in having more chain-mail dealers than book
dealers (or whatever started this) is not, to my mind, unreasonable.
It is easy, when what you are looking for--and IMHO should reasonably
expect to see--isn't there, to blame what is there for displacing it.
If the dealers room were 30% books, I doubt that Laurie and others
would be objecting so much to a table of photos of partially-clad
women. But when most of the room seems (to them) to be totally off the
direction of the convention (and as a NASFiC, this is also under the
aegis of WSFS), it's not surprising they speak up.
The real problem was trying to combine two conventions whose members
had very different expectations. If a DragonCon member expects at
least 50% comics and games, and a NASFiC member expects at least 50%
books, at least one of them will be dissatisfied. That the committee
seems to me to have slanted their convention more towards DragonCon
than to NASFiC (based on reports from both "sides") tells me that I do
not want to vote for many of the same people to run a Worldcon.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would
not have any significant first person, present indicative."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Laurie D. T. Mann
> If Laurie was objecting to the ee-vial smut professionals being (allegedly)
> featured as guests, she should have said that. What she posted was a
> categorical condemnation of having these people around at all, delivered in
> tones of well-I-never outrage. Excuse me very much for not putting the most
> benevolent possible interpretation on her remarks.
I guess you forgot I was on the "Pornography of the Future" panel back
at Noreascon III....
<sigh>
There's a huge difference between discussing the intersection between
erotica/pornography and SF/fandom (which is certainly fine by me) and the
"alleged" appearance of porn stars appearing in the huckster's room at
Dragoncon. Now, of course, people are saying "there weren't porn stars
at Dragoncon...they were B-movie stars..." <yeah, that's the ticket!>
I'm sorry that you cannot seen to comprehend the difference and think
that I was, therefore insulting your wife, who's been known to edit
pornography. I wasn't.
Dave Bogen
|>
|> BTW, the Worldcon will be operating under _Scottish_ law.
For the people in the US what do you mean by this and how
does this differ from common law?
Gary Farber
Organization: fwa pp via PANIX
Distribution:
Stuart C. Hellinger (s...@panix.com) asked:
: When did fandom become so full of closed minded fuggheads that we all
: used to complain about.
I'd suggest debating whether it was 1926 with the AMAZING lettercol, or
1930 when Ray Palmer created THE COMET.
Unless you prefer Ray Nelson's theory of how William Blake created fandom.
Thank god there were no fuggheads or stupid fanfeuds during the 1930's.
The Science Fiction League: opening revived chapters soon, in your
neighborhood. Return to Hugo; return to the true faith.
David Dyer-Bennet
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) writes:
>>
>> There is all the difference in the world between _providing_ security,
>> and _calling yourself_ "Security."
>I call myself security because that is the job that I do.
This is not unreasonable, but you really *should* think about the
effects of the name. Surely the SF community understands the power of
words?
>> One is a necessary goal to be accomplished. The other is
>> self-aggrandizing power-tripping. Understand?
>And blathering on about all the things you have done in the distant past
>is what, being humble. In case you haven't caught on yet you are out of
>touch. Many things have changed in the time you've been away. Catch up and
>then talk.
I think Gary has a somewhat strong position on this but I *don't*
think he's all that out of touch. I work on Minicon here in
Minneapolis; we were 3500 people this last year. I ran the security
department the first year we had it (and the only year; the duties
were expanded and it was named "operations" the second year, when
Martin Schafer and I coheaded it). This was late 70's, and we warn't
no 3000 people then neither. Then I was on the executive committee a
couple of years in the mid 80's, and I was chairman in 1992. I'm
reasonably current on one convention anyway. And I think Gary has
some important points right. As do you, of course.
And you just may be taking some of this a tad too personally.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard Minneapolis, MN
http://www.ddb.com (sf, photo) d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org
http://www.ddb.com/{4th-Street,minicon31} (sf conventions)
Mail to <4t...@terrabit.mn.org> for Fourth Street Fantasy Convention info
Janice Gelb
>W00...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (WILLIAM E NEAL) writes:
>> How about panels with only two members when several times that were scheduled?
>> Or panels when even the moderator was not too sure what it was suppose to be
>> about? Or panelists finding out that they were scheduled for a panel after
>> the panel started? Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
>> film program -- at least I heared there was one.
>
>I think the DragonCon staff will be the first to tell you that they had a
>severe problem with programming. A couple of major disasters (i.e. a last
>minute illness by the programming organizer) totally devastated the
>programming scheduling, planning, and logistics, and that threw a lot of
>things off-balance and had repercussions throughout almost the entire con.
>These things happen, and it's the first problem of this magnitude that I've
>seen at a Dragon (I've been to 5 of the last 6; my roommate has been to the
>last 9 and he agrees.) It was a problem, they dealt with it as well as they
>could, and all the griping in the world about "two panels for the same person
>at the same time" and "all the good panels at the same time" is not
>productive. I assure you that no one was more appalled at the problems than
>the staff, who were otherwise very well-organized and prepared.
>
Some of the programming problems have been attributed to the fact that
the different tracks of programming didn't communicate with each other
and that was why people were scheduled on items at the same time. I
don't think illness would have accounted for that. I also heard that
the person in charge of the comics programming was calling friends as
late as the Monday before the con for program ideas. People I know who
have been to Dragon*Cons in the past told me that programming is nearly
always an afterthought since the main emphasis is on the larger events
and the exhibitors hall.
And, as I've pointed out previously, there were various ways that
perhaps they could have dealt with the problem that weren't tried. For
example, rather than telling program participants that there were no
individual schedules printed and the participants were therefore
responsible for going through the newsprint program item by item to
find their own names, they could have set a computer up at program
participant registration, provided paper and a pen, and allowed the
participants to search electronically through the ASCII version of the
program. Much faster than scanning print.
Also, doing this themselves would have enabled them to spot the double-
and triple-booked participants.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Yachting is a sport for people who think golf is too culturally
diverse."
-- Jim Mullen, _Entertainment Weekly_
********************************************************************************
Pat McMurray
ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (SJ. Brewster) wrote:
>One of the greatest sensawunda shocks I ever had at a convention
>was at BaCon in Cambridge last year; the 'culturally-different' young
>Americans who were sharing New Hall with us (they were 'doing Europe')
>had been conditioned to a quite incredible (to me) degree against
>drinking alcohol. Anyone on the trip who was found with alcohol
>would be sent home, no quibbling. Naturally many of us saw this
>as an interesting challenge... Whereas in Britain, under-age drinking
>happens, is widely understood to happen, and no-one really minds
>as long as there's no violence.
Yeah, they thought we were taking the mick, when we explained what we were
doing there. One interesting point is that a couple of them were over 18
(legal age of drinking in the UK), but as they weren't 21(legal age of
drinking in whatever ghu-forsaken state they came from) so they would be
sent home for something perfectly legal. They were really wierd, but the
teachers with them were even wierder. I shall tell you The Vanishing Mirror
Storywhen we're alone. Certain people - reading this very newsgroup - might
be embarrassed if the truth were known..
Pat
Avedon Carol
> understand Boskone recently had as one of their guests a woman
> known for having edited a line of _pornographic books_. And NESFA
> even published a collection of her essays! C'mon, what kind of
> sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound like the sort of con I want to
> attend. Measures should be
> Taken.
>
> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
Jazz and sportscars, jazz and sportscars...
ECWhitley
(KELLY) writes:
>
>EC>I'll repeat what someone else here said: You don't have to put out
>fires
>EC>if you've gone to the trouble of fire-proofing.--Eva
>
>Show me the SF Convention that has no problems, and it will the very
>first one in history. We did have a large number of very visible
>problems this year - no denying that - but we ARE trying to make
>things
>a lot more "fire-proof" for next year.
>
>
Well, the idea is to make new and improved mistakes, not the old ones over
and over again.
I was reading this group last year at this time, and I don't remember this
volume of complaints. Things like the art show aisles being too narrow are
the mistakes you make early on, not later. If there are a lot of problems,
then something early on went bad. That's what I got out the earlier
comment about "fire-proofing."
Dan Deckert
Er, Stu, although I agree that this whole issue has been blown
entirely out of proportion, I saw the porn actresses (can't say if
they were stars) with my own eyes. Jackets from their videos were
on hand, and there was absolutely no doubt that the movies were
hard-core. The biggest problem I had with them being there was
extra congestion in the area around their display. It was already
too hard to move around in there.
Dan Deckert
ddec...@ufsmain.win.net
P Nielsen Hayden
>There's a huge difference between discussing the intersection between
>erotica/pornography and SF/fandom (which is certainly fine by me) and the
>"alleged" appearance of porn stars appearing in the huckster's room at
>Dragoncon. Now, of course, people are saying "there weren't porn stars
>at Dragoncon...they were B-movie stars..." <yeah, that's the ticket!>
>I'm sorry that you cannot seen to comprehend the difference and think
>that I was, therefore insulting your wife, who's been known to edit
>pornography. I wasn't.
Laurie, you know I like you, but you're simply being thick. I never thought
you were insulting Teresa. I thought -- and think -- that you are indulging
in a kind of casual bigotry about people in that industry, and I hoped to
bring this home to you by making an ironic comparison. Fruitlessly, it
would appear.
For goodness' sake, I agree that WSFS-sponsored conventions ought, by and
large, to stick to the printed word. But there's always a penumbra of film
and TV stuff at the Worldcon, very little of which I'm interested in. Why
would "porn stars" be any more inappropriate that any of the rest of the
crap we put up with? Well, of course, we know the answer.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
Joseph W. Casey
> Joseph W. Casey (am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : While I will admit I have guilty of some belligerent comments, I must say
> : that I am not the only one. Several ofthe comments made about people who
> : work security in general have been very offensive and I hve been
> : responding in kind to them.
>
> : I will say it again. I will accept any one who will accept me. However, if
> : you start insulting me or my people I will respond.
>
> It is comments like these that prove that in reality you are highly
> unqualified to work in a "security"/operations position at a science
> fiction convention.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not working security at the moment. As
with a number of people my off duty persona is quite different from my on
duty one. I can be quite polite to a person in public who I will,
figuratively, rend limb from limb in private. I view this discussion group
as a private conversation between people who run conventions.
Joseph W. Casey
--
Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
Steve Glover
Pat McMurray <p...@cooky.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>teachers with them were even wierder. I shall tell you The Vanishing Mirror
>Storywhen we're alone. Certain people - reading this very newsgroup - might
>be embarrassed if the truth were known..
Hmmf. It's all hearsay and speculation, and a very dull story anyway.
Steve
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soliciting for Intersection issue of Etranger: topics include morality in
works of people called Smith or about people called Smith; net stuff of likely
interest to SF fans, art... Deadline 15-JUL-1995: steve_...@hicom.lut.ac.uk
Stuart C. Hellinger
Organization: strangelande productions, ltd.
Distribution:
Joseph W. Casey (am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not working security at the moment. As
: with a number of people my off duty persona is quite different from my on
: duty one. I can be quite polite to a person in public who I will,
: figuratively, rend limb from limb in private. I view this discussion group
: as a private conversation between people who run conventions.
I noticed that you didn't actually say you were currently working
security. That still hads no bearing on my response which is clearly
directed at all of your statements.
Of course, you could be trying to insult me out of your own ignorance. I
hope that this is not the case.
"a private conversation between people who run conventions" you say?
Well, I find your position makes you unqualified for a "Security"
position. Your attitude is the opposite from what is needed.
I would never allow someone with your attitude to work on any convention
I am involved in. And, that is and has been more than you go to.
Ulrika O'Brien
> While I will admit I have guilty of some belligerent comments, I must >say
>that I am not the only one. Several ofthe comments made about people who
>work security in general have been very offensive and I hve been
>responding in kind to them.
>
>I will say it again. I will accept any one who will accept me. However, if
>you start insulting me or my people I will respond.
Um. Maybe I shouldn't butt in here, but Joe (can I call you Joe?) you
seem like a fellow capable of being reasonable and endowed with a sense
of humor, and I can't help thinking that your communications with Gary
have just gone a bit awry. If you think he's being belligerent, I think
you mistake him. I hesitate to suggest it, but you may be reading what
he has to say incautiously.
In particular, I doubt very much that if you read what he's had to say
you will find a single slam by him against people who serve in security
function in general. Part of what he's on about is the name "security"
and not the function. In particular what he's on about is people who
sign up for security to play power fantasies rather than help people. I
think, from what you've said elsewhere, that you agree with him on this
-- i.e. that people on an ops/troubleshooting/security detail should not
be goons looking for trouble.
Moreover, I think it was you, not Gary, who turned this into an
'acceptance' issue, rather than an 'image' issue. What Gary was
originally addressing wrt KAG was that new pros and other adults who come
to fandom in adulthood may not find the idea of a group of adults calling
themselves Klingons running a major function of the convention
to be the most attractive or comforting one conceivable. That people
who appreciate the genre, who even create in it, may come to us with
'normal' mundane expectations for adult behavior isn't too shocking is
it? That doesn't make their expectations 'right' or 'wrong' but they are
predictable. There still remains the question of what, if anything, we
want to do about that fact, but Gary was just calling attention to the
fact, not calling out an airstrike in response to it.
Finally, in response to the idea (in a different post of yours, sorry..)
that we should call it "Security" because that's what the job is, I think
this approaches circularity. The job can be any of a number of tasks,
many of which don't involve securing anything. For instance, I sometimes
pick up a little extra money working for a market research firm that does
'free' movie screenings to research audience responses.
In the course of doing such screenings, we do any number of the jobs that
convention security squads might do, including crowd control, checking
badges (well, tickets), escorting guests (and if you think keeping fans
off an author is hard, try wrangling Jodie Foster or Harrison Ford for an
evening), securing reserved seats, maintaining order, answering dippy
questions, and turning away people who do not belong.
Tiny little women (of whom I am not one) in high heels accomplish all of
this with little more than smiles, broad gestures, unflagging politeness,
and a willingness to sound like a broken record. We don't call it
"Security" we call it running a screening, and in fact those who do do
the dedicated task that most closely resembles the function of "security"
are called, ominously enough, "Theater Girls." Not to badmouth security
as such, because all of these tasks, and others, are important, but I
just don't see the tasks at hand being any better described by the name
"Security" than by the name "Theater Girl". Especially if
unobtrusiveness is one of the goals of the function. "Security" is
generally visible. "Ops" isn't.
At any rate, relax. Nobody here is trying to make you out to be a bad
person, they're just trying to discuss how image affects function and
effectiveness in convention departments, that's all. It's just too soon
to be grabbing shirtfronts, I think...:)
Cheers,
Ulrika
Joseph W. Casey
> hope that this is not the case.
I was attempting to carry on a conversation with a group of people I tend
to respect when you interupted. If I were to insult you you would know it.
> "a private conversation between people who run conventions" you say?
> Well, I find your position makes you unqualified for a "Security"
> position. Your attitude is the opposite from what is needed.
As you have never met me I can safely say that you don't know what you are
talking about.
> I would never allow someone with your attitude to work on any convention
> I am involved in. And, that is and has been more than you go to.
I wish I could say I cared, but I don't. The people who know me, and who I
have worked for in the past, and will continue to work for in the future,
respect my work and trust me to handle difficult situations. The fact that
someone who has never met me and never seen my work is prepared to reject
me because he doesn't like the way I respond to people on usenet really
will not impact on my self esteem.
Volt
: While I will admit I have guilty of some belligerent comments, I must say
: that I am not the only one. Several ofthe comments made about people who
: work security in general have been very offensive and I hve been
: responding in kind to them.
Some people who have been selected to work security have behaved in
a fashion which is unacceptable to the fannish community. Old news.
By classing yourself as security and defending that label you become
the designated target for security gripes. Despite that fact that
you aren't involved with the security they are grumbling about.
Perhaps your security departments have been flawless.
: I will say it again. I will accept any one who will accept me. However, if
: you start insulting me or my people I will respond.
But with this attitude and one or two of your other statements I
suspect your security, quite frankly, hasn't been flawless.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong but elsewhere you advocate using
physical force to handle a problem. i.e. remove a gatecrasher.
Maybe where you are it's different, but here that exposes
the convention to liability and bad press like nobodies business.
2. Me or my people? It's us against them, and we aren't fighting to
lose. We'll go down shooting. Take some of them with us. What
do you mean "serve and protect?" this is war!
When you sign up for security you bite your lip and take it.
Volt
Avedon Carol
>
>
> JWC
You are required to eat haggis and drink a pint of sherry.
Mike Yearick
My brother and I went to register on Wed night. I am an eternal
member and he had pre-registered for a 4-day pass. It took him about
30 minutes and it took me about 40 minutes. I kinda expected my
eternal membership to eliminate registration lines not
make them longer than regular registration.
Hotels: C-
Shuttles notwithstanding, the distance between the hotels was
definitely not a plus. It would have been much nicer to have hotels
across the street from each other rather than several blocks (uphill)
apart. The hotel staff at each seemed OK (although the Hilton front
desk lost some of my mail which cost me some business).
Elevators: C
The elevator service was horrible (even at 02:30) but this seems to be
a common problem at these conventions.
Pocket Program: D+
Where was the up-to-date gaming schedule?? Completely missing. The
information on the other programming was a little less accurate than
one would expect. Although the non-gaming schedule was published
electronically (sort of), the gaming schedule was not. Very
disappointing.
Card Gaming: C-
This score may not be as accurate as the others I have provided. My
only exposure to card gaming was that the Highlander cards were not
available when scheduled which caused a major schedule shuffle for me.
The card area did seem to be busy most of the
time and I heard that a StarQuest tournament was very well received.
Board Gaming: B-
They lost my pre-registration and told me that my check would be
returned (I have not seen it yet) which cost me an extra 35 minutes in
line. However, things went fairly well after registration with one
exception. The Axis and Allies tourney was severly
mishandled and just about erupted into a riot. Most other games in
which I participated started close to on-time and had judges who were
knowledable and reasonable. Scott ??? ran several enjoyable events.
I would have liked to have seen a bit more planning and consistency
with prize tokens but I understand that events that end in the last
session often run into there-are-no-tokens-left-to-award syndrome.
Open gaming in the board game area: B
Not a lot of non-tournament gaming going on. I guess Origins did
siphon off most of the gamers. There was not even much manufacturer
demo gaming going on. I did not see one board of Supremacy (which I
wanted to learn to play this year) the whole weekend. There was
plenty of open space this year but the space provided would have been
way too small for the crowd that attended last year.
RPG: ?
No experience to relate and did not hear any stories good, bad or
ugly.
Computer Gaming: F-
I sent several notes to the concom prior to July expressing a desire
to play a multi-player strategy game called Global Conquest. Their
response was that there was not enough interest to schedule a
tournament but that all popular games such as GC would be loaded and
available to play. Fair enough. I brought my own copy of the game
just in case. I brought my own laptop just in case. I brought my own
null modem adapter and serial cable just in case. Found out that GC
was not loaded. Left my personal
copy to be loaded. Found out that the computers there did not have
serial ports!!! So much for the showdown between my brother and me.
Very disappointing. Note that the twitchy finger crowd may score this
activity much higher.
Auction (non-charity): F
Where were the non-charity auctions this year?? I was not the only
one that missed these. One guy showed up in open gaming with several
big boxes of "stuff" for sale because there was no auction this year.
What happened to the guy in the red shoes running these auctions?? I
hope no malady has beset him and these activities can be scheduled
next year.
Dealer's Room: D
Too crowded. Way too crowded. Range of merchandise was good. Prices
seemed about average.
Consuite: D
Could not find a consuite at the Westin (although they did have free
ice water) where I spent the overwhelming majority of my time.
Visited the consuite at the Hilton three times. The first two times
there was not much food available but plenty of soda
(however, there was plenty of evidence scattered about that food had
been available previously). The third time was 08:25 on Sunday
morning and it was closed. I waited til 08:45 but it did not open and
I could not get to the Westin for my first tournament of the day if I
waited any longer. Never did get a hot KK.
Overall: C-
As you can tell from my categories above, most of my time was spent
gaming. Therefore, many of the activities at the Hilton were not
covered. I hope these comments can be used to improve the con next
year as they are intended as constructive not destructive.
Mike Yearick
P Nielsen Hayden
>> You're right. I mean, it's one thing to tolerate "erotica," but I
>> understand Boskone recently had as one of their guests a woman
>> known for having edited a line of _pornographic books_. And NESFA
>> even published a collection of her essays! C'mon, what kind of
>> sense is THAT? It sure doesn't sound like the sort of con I want to
>> attend. Measures should be
>> Taken.
>>
>> -----
>> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
>Jazz and sportscars, jazz and sportscars...
The next step will be for someone to read my remarks in this thread as
quoted by you, and decide that _I'm_ the one on a tear against evile
pornographers... :)
"Irony? No, we don't get that here."
Laurie D. T. Mann
.....
> Why not? Why would we draw the line at "porn stars?" What rationale?
In another posting, you recently complained about the use of
paramilitary as con security. Patrick backed you up, saying something
like we shouldn't be violating people's "comfort levels."
It's oh so useful to see how some people will support "comfort levels"
around some issues, but not around others. Being in the same room
with porn stars as quasi program participants definitely violates
my "comfort levels." DISCUSSING porn/erotica/sex is a whole different
issue.
It makes sense to just let Dragoncon be a "media/comics con" and let folks
who believe that Dragoncons are great to go to them, and leave those of
us who are literary junkies to our own conventions.
Chad Childers Mulligan O'Brien
>the panel started? Then there were the film fans who never knew there was a
I've almost had that happen to me at Marcon... it was just by pure luck that
I found out I was on the panel before it started.
>Maybe DragonCon just tried to hold too many cons under one roof.
I also heard that it went badly from an offline friend. Sorry you had a bad
time, though I must admit that I'm relieved that it doesn't sound like it has
much of a chance at the WorldCon bid.
--
/* Chad Childers */ http://grimmy.cnidr.org/chad.html
Chad Childers Mulligan O'Brien
>line. I just looked at him like he was nuts and said, "Make me."
>
>So now he's doing con security?
Yep. This is a common problem - we've considered things like having our
volunteers wear a button with a big, silly, friendly picture of a gopher so
that they don't get too pompous... I think we discussed a propeller beanie to
indicate security on duty, or other silly options to avoid the "Threatening
Klingon" syndrome, or the issues that some people have with the Dorsai
Irregulars. I always thought Swords For Hire was cool, but that was in the
days when it was more common to carry large pointy objects at a con, and they
never actually threatened any attendees with said objects.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Gary Farber...
>.....
>> Why not? Why would we draw the line at "porn stars?" What rationale?
>In another posting, you recently complained about the use of
>paramilitary as con security. Patrick backed you up, saying something
>like we shouldn't be violating people's "comfort levels."
>It's oh so useful to see how some people will support "comfort levels"
>around some issues, but not around others. Being in the same room
>with porn stars as quasi program participants definitely violates
>my "comfort levels." DISCUSSING porn/erotica/sex is a whole different
>issue.
The phrase I used was "boundary issues," not "comfort levels." You appear
to have muddled the two. They certainly don't mean the same thing.
I personally don't care whether the people I'm "in the same room with" are
porn stars, costumed Klingon fans, or Republicans; all I ever questioned was
the wisdom of having people in paramilitary costumes perform a particular
task (convention security).
What your labored comparison misses is that I am objecting to a particular
practice at SF conventions, while you are saying that certain people ought
not be at SF conventions because of what they do elsewhere. If you can't
see why this is unpleasant of you, then you're too upset to think straight.
Joseph W. Casey
>
> Some people who have been selected to work security have behaved in
> a fashion which is unacceptable to the fannish community. Old news.
> By classing yourself as security and defending that label you become
> the designated target for security gripes. Despite that fact that
> you aren't involved with the security they are grumbling about.
> Perhaps your security departments have been flawless.
Actually, I have never seen any department at any convention that was
flawless, security or otherwise.
> : I will say it again. I will accept any one who will accept me. However, if
> : you start insulting me or my people I will respond.
>
> But with this attitude and one or two of your other statements I
> suspect your security, quite frankly, hasn't been flawless.
>
> 1. Correct me if I'm wrong but elsewhere you advocate using
> physical force to handle a problem. i.e. remove a gatecrasher.
> Maybe where you are it's different, but here that exposes
> the convention to liability and bad press like nobodies business.
Unless things are different where you are it is permissible to take a
gatecrasher by the arm and escort them to the door, I believe it is also
permissible to strike back if assaulted.
> 2. Me or my people? It's us against them, and we aren't fighting to
> lose. We'll go down shooting. Take some of them with us. What
> do you mean "serve and protect?" this is war!
I think you're overdoing the irony a bit here. As with any good department
head I stand up for the people who work for me. If they are going to get a
dressing down from any member of the concom it will be from me. If a
member of the convention has a problem they are to be directed to me. I
don't see what is wrong with this idea. I respect the staff members of
other department and will go through the department head if I have a
complaint, I see nothing wrong with this attitude.
> When you sign up for security you bite your lip and take it.
Within reason.