Chessiecon Hotel Reminder

[Keith F. Lynch]

Don't forget to reserve a room at the Delta Hunt Valley hotel. We
negotiated a special rate, but it expires October 24. Use the special
reservation link found on our website: https://chessiecon.org/hotel.html
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Gary McGath]

On 9/30/22 11:52 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Don't forget to reserve a room at the Delta Hunt Valley hotel. We
> negotiated a special rate, but it expires October 24. Use the special
> reservation link found on our website: https://chessiecon.org/hotel.html

A short note on Chessiecon's code of conduct:

https://www.chessiecon.org/code.html

I'm not planning to attend; this is just part of my habit of reviewing
con policies.

There are worse ones than Chessiecon's. Just one item seriously concerns me:

Discrimination against any convention member based on
irrelevant characteristics will not be tolerated and
is a violation of the code of conduct. Such irrelevant
characteristics include but are not limited to: gender,
race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or physical/mental disability.

On a personal, social level, it's generally assumed that people can
discriminate for any reasons they consider relevant. A lot of people
like to hang around with "their own kind," whether that's based on
physical appearance, ethnicity, sex, religion, or whatever.

To discriminate is to differentiate, and often is used to indicate
preference for one category over another. There are many cases where
most people agree it's wrong. Some are marginal; can a dealer at the con
legitimately refuse to sell sacred items to someone who doesn't respect
their religion?

But on the personal level, everyone discriminates, and it's considered
acceptable. We prefer the company of one person to another for reasons
that are purely our own. Just by going to the con, attendees are
discriminating in favor of science fiction fans.

I don't expect the Con Police to expel the entire membership, including
themselves, for doing what people always do, but such badly-worded rules
can be used as an excuse to harass or expel someone whom someone on a
con committee doesn't like.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
news:th97ce$1anvf$1...@dont-email.me:

> I don't expect the Con Police to expel the entire membership,
> including themselves, for doing what people always do, but such
> badly-worded rules can be used as an excuse to harass or expel
> someone whom someone on a con committee doesn't like.
>

That is often the entire point of such vague policies.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Bernard Peek]

On 2022-10-01, Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/22 11:52 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Don't forget to reserve a room at the Delta Hunt Valley hotel. We
>> negotiated a special rate, but it expires October 24. Use the special
>> reservation link found on our website: https://chessiecon.org/hotel.html
>
> A short note on Chessiecon's code of conduct:
>
> https://www.chessiecon.org/code.html
>
> I'm not planning to attend; this is just part of my habit of reviewing
> con policies.
>
> There are worse ones than Chessiecon's. Just one item seriously concerns me:
>
> Discrimination against any convention member based on
> irrelevant characteristics will not be tolerated and
> is a violation of the code of conduct. Such irrelevant
> characteristics include but are not limited to: gender,
> race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender
> identity, or physical/mental disability.
>
> On a personal, social level, it's generally assumed that people can
> discriminate for any reasons they consider relevant.

No, it's not 'generally assumed' and in many places it could be illegal.

The catch-all 'not limited to' is there to cover other sorts of assholery.
Yes it could be used to exclude anyone the concom doesn't like. There is
quite possibly another rule that makes that more explicit.

> A lot of people
> like to hang around with "their own kind," whether that's based on
> physical appearance, ethnicity, sex, religion, or whatever.
>
> To discriminate is to differentiate, and often is used to indicate
> preference for one category over another. There are many cases where
> most people agree it's wrong. Some are marginal; can a dealer at the con
> legitimately refuse to sell sacred items to someone who doesn't respect
> their religion?
>
> But on the personal level, everyone discriminates, and it's considered
> acceptable.

Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and discrimination on
any of those grounds is considered unacceptable. This rule just makes it
explicit. I don't see an issue here.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Keith F. Lynch]

Bernard Peek <b...@gamma.shrdlu.com> wrote:
> Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and
> discrimination on any of those grounds is considered unacceptable.
> This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see an issue here.

Discrimination on any of those grounds is illegal in public
accomodations. For instance if you're running a store (ObUK: a shop),
and don't allow people of the "wrong" race in. But in other contexts
it's perfectly okay. For instance for a woman staying in the con
hotel to offer crash space, but only to another women, not to a man.
I don't think any con should object to this discrimination.

[Gary McGath]

On 10/4/22 4:18 PM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2022-10-01, Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:

>> There are worse ones than Chessiecon's. Just one item seriously concerns me:
>>
>> Discrimination against any convention member based on
>> irrelevant characteristics will not be tolerated and
>> is a violation of the code of conduct. Such irrelevant
>> characteristics include but are not limited to: gender,
>> race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender
>> identity, or physical/mental disability.
>>
>> On a personal, social level, it's generally assumed that people can
>> discriminate for any reasons they consider relevant.
>
> No, it's not 'generally assumed' and in many places it could be illegal.

Could you give an example of a person being prosecuted for personal,
social choices, or at least a law on the books that would plausibly
allow such prosecution?

>
> The catch-all 'not limited to' is there to cover other sorts of assholery.
> Yes it could be used to exclude anyone the concom doesn't like. There is
> quite possibly another rule that makes that more explicit.

I gave a link to the page. If there's another rule that clarifies what
commonly practiced behavior, which you call "assholery," is or isn't
prohibited, you should be able to find it rather than speculating.

>

>> But on the personal level, everyone discriminates, and it's considered
>> acceptable.
>
> Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and discrimination on
> any of those grounds is considered unacceptable. This rule just makes it
> explicit. I don't see an issue here.

Considered unacceptable by you, perhaps, but you're in a very small
minority. Women, Hindus, gays, Chinese, etc., all often like to hang
around with others who share those characteristics with them. It isn't
uncommon for them to enjoy books and movies that feature people like
themselves.

It's possible that some countries have laws prohibiting this. Some
countries have extremely draconian laws. I'd still want to see an
example. But in the US, Canada, and most of Europe (to cite only
countries with which I have experience), it's routine and legal for
people to socially discriminate in favor of people similar to themselves.

Just by participating in this newsgroup, you're discriminating in favor
of science fiction fans. Fandom isn't on the list of "irrelevant"
characteristics, so perhaps you consider that OK, but it could be
"assholery" under the "not limited to" phrase.

In the world I'm familiar with, people routinely exercise social
preference based on many characteristics, including the ones on the
"irrelevant" list, and no one except you objects, and no one is prosecuted.

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:53:28 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Bernard Peek <b...@gamma.shrdlu.com> wrote:
> > Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and
> > discrimination on any of those grounds is considered unacceptable.
> > This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see an issue here.
> Discrimination on any of those grounds is illegal in public
> accomodations. For instance if you're running a store (ObUK: a shop),
> and don't allow people of the "wrong" race in. But in other contexts
> it's perfectly okay. For instance for a woman staying in the con
> hotel to offer crash space, but only to another women, not to a man.
> I don't think any con should object to this discrimination.

"Public accommodation" is the key point. Private clubs and societies *can*
discriminate. Cons have memberships, and a con *could* presumably limit
who it sold memberships to. The only SF related case I can think of is the
1988 Boskone. This was immediately after the 'Boskone from Hell', and
NESFA decided to scale back. They moved it from Boston to Springfield,
and granted memberships only to people who'd been to multiple earlier
Boskones. The goal was to get rid of the large number of college students
who came to the Hynes for room parties and booze. It worked, and Arisia
appeared in 1990 as a direct reaction.

I'm not sure what separates 'Public accommodation' from 'private club'.
Selling memberships at the door seems pretty close to public, though
cons do have blacklists of people not to be admitted. At the other end,
a joining process that takes interviews, balloting, and months of time to
complete is pretty private.

pt

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cb08e867-5f06-43ef...@googlegroups.com:

If a convention announced that they wouldn't be allowing black
people or Jews to attend, they'd cease to exist so fast it would c
create a black hole. The hotel that hosts them is most certainly
public accomodation, and the actual criteria for membership is
"give us money and don't be on a blacklist," and that is
unquestionably a public accomodation.

Discrimination is not illegal, ever. Only discrimination on the
basis of a protected class. The difference is *important*. They
could, for example, ban Star Trek fans, but not Star Wars. They
could ban people who wear white socks. They could, and do, ban
assholes who disrupt things. None of those are protected classes.

Privte organizations can, to some extent, engage in discrimination
against protected classes, but that is *much* more limited than you
seem to believe.

--
Terry Austin

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <cb08e867-5f06-43ef...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Selling memberships at the door seems pretty close to public, though
>cons do have blacklists of people not to be admitted.

(Hal Heydt)
I can't speak for other cons, but DunDraCon not only has a (very
short) blacklist of people not to be sold memberships, but the
list resides in a database table that gets checked when a
membership is entered. That way, the volunteers at conreg don't
have to know who is on the list. It's not a perfect check (I can
think of ways around it), but it does exist.