Want to clean the fandom?
Greylocks
Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
enforce the rules.
Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
No excuses, no refund.
They are also never invited to attend that convention. (Probably others,
as convention staff talk to staff from other cons).
If all the conventions do the same with zero pity, the troublemakers
will have to find other ways to screw up the fandom, or they will
finally get the message.
And please, no whining about abuse of rights. A convention falls under
the same rules as an invitation-only party. If you act like a fool, out
you go. A convention is not a 'right', attendence is a privilege. That
privilege can be revoked in a matter of seconds.
I'm not shure about US laws, but in Canada it's just that simple; the
offender leaves. If the offender makes a scene, they will have to argue
with the Police. End of problem.
My con is my party on my turf. You make a mess of my party, you get
tossed-out.
If a convention is clean, the shady media type will have nothing to
report, and we wont see big stories on TV.
So call this a challenge to all convention staff from this old guy; the
convention I help run Will be kept clean. How about yours?
Eisenschwarz.
wrote:
*snip*
It sounds like a good idea, but
Who can say what's wrong or right?
(No I'm not supporting moral relativism)
You'd need to come up with a standard and fair and enforceable set of
rules that everyone on the con staff agrees with,
Not an easy thing to do.
But it would be very easy for someone to be chucked out for some
reason or another and for an argument of diabolical proportions arise.
Inevitability people would pile in on one side or the other and we'd
just end up with splits, divisions and woeful offence to manifold
personages.
I like yer thinking though, if you could carry the idea through with a
reasonable measure of unity and fairness it could very well work to
eliminate some of the more blatant troublemakers perhaps.
___
Keine Götter
Nur Entropie
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> Start someplace that many media point at; the conventions.
>
> Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
> enforce the rules.
>
> Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
> out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
>
> No excuses, no refund.
>
> They are also never invited to attend that convention. (Probably others,
> as convention staff talk to staff from other cons).
>
> If all the conventions do the same with zero pity, the troublemakers
> will have to find other ways to screw up the fandom, or they will
> finally get the message.
Bravo! Exactly.
-MMM-
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
Greylocks
conduct. Make it clear to all who attend it will be enforced.
Base it on the local laws, quote the laws in question if necessary, then
enforce it.
Never toss someone out 'just because'.
If they break Federal Laws of the country where the convention is held,
then they must expect to deal with the consequences. If their actions
reflect on all the hard work the Con staff have done, they should also
expect the consequences.
If they want to land on MTV, fine, but Not On My Turf.
Or to make it even simpler; Want to mess up my party? Then leave.
It takes work to do a cleanup, some of that work is either solved by
planning, or by covering disasters. It has to start someplace.
(Keep in mind the difference in laws between countries. Canada is very
strict about this, the process in the US is different. Here all I'd have
to do is say Leave).
Gabriel Gentile
> Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
> enforce the rules.
And tasers. Don't forget tasers. Gotta have tasers.
ilr
"Greylocks" <grey...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:3CB04FDC...@videotron.ca...
I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD
(why bother?)
John Urie
Greylocks wrote:
> Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
> out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
>
> No excuses, no refund.
I would add only one thing to this idea. Make violations of con rules a
'One-warning only' policy' The first time you break a rule, you recieve a
warning. The second time, you're out. This will greatly reduce the
possibility of a legal hassle down the road. ( "My client didn't KNOW he
was in violation of the rules." )
This, of course, applies only to those instances where breaking the
convention rules of conduct is NOT also breaking the law. In the case of
actual lawbreakers, yes, throw them out immediately...and call the
authorities.
John Urie
G. Raymond Eddy
I've spent nearly the last two months working as a gate guard at a
factory that makes baby formula and adult supplements. Now I've never
worked security at a convention, so what I'm about to say is strictly
for the purpose of comparing notes.
Dress code: Security personnel at Ross Labs wear uniforms, are required
to have their hair cut and be clean shaven. Anthrocon personnel, from
what I've observed, wear these red shirts and no such furry acoutrements
as ears and tails. They want to present themselves as presentable, and
willing to take seriously their job of keeping a strange group of people
in line. This is commendable.
Logs and Incident Reports: One thing that I'm required to do at Ross
Labs that might be beneficial at a convention is keep a daily log,
supplemented whereever appropriate by incident reports. Anything a
security officer observes that (s)he deems out of the ordinary is
recorded in the daily log, and really big trouble is recorded at length
in an incident report, supported by photos of the scene of the incident
whenever people and property are damaged. Does the security at your
local convention do this?
--
___________ G. Raymond Eddy g e d @ r g t n t
(_ _ _ 2256 Bruce Rd. #13 r d y b i h . e (zigzagged)
(__ __)__)(_/ Delaware, OH 43015-9768 ICQ: #10322859
___________/ http://www.bright.net/~greddy
mhirtes
"Eisenschwarz." wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:55:40 -0400, Greylocks <grey...@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> It sounds like a good idea, but
> Who can say what's wrong or right?
I'd say deliberately having gay snogfests in the public hotel lobby and
spurting semen all over an elevator wall would fall under "wrong" in
many a person's opinion.
Eisenschwarz.
wrote:
*snip*
Hmmmm,
If you could create and get people to accept and implement a standard
set of base rules that all cons & associated staff & attendees could
follow, perhaps allowing some deviation and/or additions based upon
locality and clientele etc, it might just work.
IF is the word though.
mhirtes
"Eisenschwarz." wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 13:28:03 -0400, Greylocks <grey...@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> Hmmmm,
> If you could create and get people to accept and implement a standard
> set of base rules that all cons & associated staff & attendees could
> follow, perhaps allowing some deviation
I think furry fandom has too many "deviates" in it already. That's it's curse.
Blackberry
>
>Start someplace that many media point at; the conventions.
>
>Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
>enforce the rules.
>
>Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
What con in the last 5 years has been guilty of this?
Also, I know that it's just me, but I seem to think that there is enough "room"
in "furry fandom" even for people I disagree with. How odd.
--------------------
"Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's
sweet sake, you stupid, vulgar, greedy, ugly American death-sucker."
-- William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook the Destroyer"
Blackberry
>
>How to judge? Pretty simple actually; make a set of rules, a code of
>conduct. Make it clear to all who attend it will be enforced.
>Base it on the local laws, quote the laws in question if necessary, then
>enforce it.
>
>Never toss someone out 'just because'.
>
>If they break Federal Laws of the country where the convention is held,
>then they must expect to deal with the consequences. If their actions
>reflect on all the hard work the Con staff have done, they should also
>expect the consequences.
Point out a convention that allows felonies to be committed openly.
>If they want to land on MTV, fine, but Not On My Turf.
>
>Or to make it even simpler; Want to mess up my party? Then leave.
Why are you the one who sets the rules?
Cnipur Daphim
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wulf...@dm.net> wrote in message
news:v881bu8p67m23u2t5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:33:22 GMT, Gabriel Gentile
> <spook...@earthlink.net> (Gabriel Gentile) left the following spoor in
> alt.fan.furry:
> Tasers are controlled as firearms in many jurisdictions... You'd
> need a carry permit to have them.
>
> Common "stun guns" aren't under that control as you have to be
> close enough to make physical contact. Tasers, however, use a gas charge
to
> fire the electrodes out the front -- extending the range for use.
>
> --
> > ============================================================ <
> > wulf...@dm.net | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> > bie...@ix.netcom.com | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> > ============================================================ <
> > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
>
Eisenschwarz.
wrote:
>
>I think furry fandom has too many "deviates" in it already. That's it's curse.
No no no no,
I meant deviation as in allowing a certain flexibility of the rules.
Not deviate as in people whose behaviour differs from the acceptable
average of a particular social grouping.
Speaking of which...
POT CALL KETTLE!
POT CALL KETTLE!
POT CALL KETTLE!
Repeat ad infinitum for mhirtes benefit.
Akai
conduct at a convention and a staff that is willing to deal with gross
violations of said code, but imposing police state tactics on convention
attendees would be way too easy to abuse. Think about what Zero Tolerance
policies have done to schools. Students being suspended or expelled for
bringing asprin or a butter knife to school. Certainly if you want to
introduce an atmosphere of paranoia and fear to a convention then that's a
great idea. But if you want to have a convention that is actually fun to go
to then a more balanced policy is needed.
"Greylocks" <grey...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3CB04FDC...@videotron.ca...
Intrigue
wrote:
>Start someplace that many media point at; the conventions.
Well, I have NEVER seen media coverage of a Furcon... Do you have
some links I might peruse?
>
>Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
>enforce the rules.
I could understand no orgies in the front lobby, but what exactly do
you NOT like? I mean a general consensus would be a step in the right
direction.
>
>Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
>out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
Heh heh heh Anyone who hears about this type of stuff and is not
into it, considers none who attend, "Normal"
>
>No excuses, no refund.
Agreed, but if they rented a room at the hotel...Now this might get
into a sticky question. Depends upon WHERE the infraction was
committed I would only guess...
>
>They are also never invited to attend that convention. (Probably others,
>as convention staff talk to staff from other cons).
Well, I have never been invited to a con. I was only asked to come,
pay my way and have a good time..But never "Invited"
>
>If all the conventions do the same with zero pity, the troublemakers
>will have to find other ways to screw up the fandom, or they will
>finally get the message.
Be specific please. Define "Troublemakers"
>
>So call this a challenge to all convention staff from this old guy; the
>convention I help run Will be kept clean. How about yours?
I see the word "Clean". Sounds sort of "Puritinanical"
Please define YOUR version of "Clean"
This is not a flame nor am I trying to make fun of your feleings or
opinions. However, they are so general to sound very unpleasant to
some. Please define what you WANT and what would be"Tolerable" to
others...
A middle ground would be possible.
Plus, I didn't know the "Fandom" had become "sleazy"
Caveman Joe
but I don't see any reason why the rules at cons couldn't be the same as the
"rules" at nightclubs.
IE:
There is only one rule. Don't be a wanker.
Now, nobody has to ask for the definition of a wanker. If they do, they're
a wanker, and we kick them out. :)
There, that's simple enough. Wankers get kicked out - if Wanker B complains
about Wanker A being kicked out, we give Wanker B a stern talking-to, and if
they prove themselves to be really Mouthy Arsehole Wanker B, we tell them
they've got their head so far up their own arse they can see out of their
mouth - and we kick them out.
--
CULTURE SHOCK
http://www.cultureshockonline.co.uk
Award-winning online suspense fiction
"Eisenschwarz." <Eisenschwarz@NOSPAMPLEASEWE'REBRITISH.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:3cb05c5a...@news.btopenworld.com...
Caveman Joe
problem with that would be welcome to stay at home. ;)
--
--
CULTURE SHOCK
http://www.cultureshockonline.co.uk
Award-winning online suspense fiction
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:a8q7s...@drn.newsguy.com...
Todd Knarr
> Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
> out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
This is already the case at all conventions I know of.
> And please, no whining about abuse of rights. A convention falls under
> the same rules as an invitation-only party. If you act like a fool, out
> you go. A convention is not a 'right', attendence is a privilege. That
> privilege can be revoked in a matter of seconds.
Yes it is. However the hotel _isn't_ under those same rules, it's a
open-to-the-public business with it's own rules. You can kick someone
out of the convention for violating the convention's rules, but you
can't kick them out of the hotel. Only the hotel can do that, and they
won't do that unless the person's violated the hotel's rules or the law.
This is a problem for your idea because, for example, wearing a collar
and leather and kneeling at your master's feet _isn't_ a violation of
the law and the hotel may not think the legal-liability risk is worth
treating it as a violation of hotel rules if you're sticking to your
master and not actively involving random hotel guests. The same thing
applies to the infamous parties: they're in private rooms, _not_ convention
space, so the convention legally can't take much action unless the activity
spills over into the convention itself. The best the convention can do
is refuse to sell that person a membership again ( revoking the current
membership can be legally risky if the person hasn't violated convention
rules in convention space ).
Consistent enforcement of the rules is already the policy of every furry
con, and they have little tolerance for the sort of disruptive behavior
you're concerned about. But I think you vastly overestimate how far the
convention can extend it's enforcement reach without serious legal risk,
how much behavior is actually a violation of the law and how much action
the hotel and the convention can take about actions that don't actually
violate the law but are merely tasteless and offensive.
--
We won, didn't we? Cope!
-- Mimi, Reality Check #8
Caveman Joe
would be someone who, after being called a wanker, gets out a dictionary and
says:
"Well, Webster's defines "Wanker" as someone who gets out dictionaries and
looks up terms used in... Oh, wait. I see."
--
--
CULTURE SHOCK
http://www.cultureshockonline.co.uk
Award-winning online suspense fiction
"Caveman Joe" <C...@RUOK36.NAESPAMTAVERYMUCHMATEY.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote in
message news:a8qbrm$12m$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sven Tegethoff
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:33:22 GMT, Gabriel Gentile
> <spook...@earthlink.net> (Gabriel Gentile) left the following spoor in
> alt.fan.furry:
>
>>
>> > enforce the rules.
>>
>> And tasers. Don't forget tasers. Gotta have tasers.
>
> need a carry permit to have them.
You took that seriously?
Sometimes, americans can be really freaky.
yours,
cheetah
mhirtes
Laugh it up, but the truth remains that if a thread like "Want to clean
the fandom?" can attract so may replies to it 9and it's sure to keep
growing), then there must be a lot of dirt that needs sweeping out of it.
Paul R. Bennett
"Citation to accompany the award..."
Hey Greylocks... I have stood proud more than once when a Squadron Commander
has called me in front of the Squadron with that opening line and pinned a
medal on my chest.
You are doin' IT! And for Furry! And Anthro Art.
GO FOR IT!
For what ever diety any of us worship. For all those of us, whether we wear
the label of lifestyler or not. For every one who, innocent, enjoys the
notion of anthro art, tail and ears or not.
Furry, like it or not, is part of the world, subject to the laws and mores
of that world. Banannas stuffed into assorted, miscellaneous bodily
orifaces is not gonna change that.
Why should the only thing Furry explores be its sexuality?
There is a whole world of concepts out there. Anthropomorphic art can
explore them, both in graphics and text.
Go for Zero Tolerance! Let Furry Never Forget that the world does not
revolve around them.
Greylocks. I know I sound freaky and weird, but for damned good reason I do
not handle any violation of person, any abuse of power or control well.
There are things from my childhood I wish I could forget, but, because of
them I swore that I will never permit or turn my back on some things. I go
off the deep end in anger and hostility when violation of innocence and
power occur. But I will not resort to violence. I believe that with power
comes responsiblity.
A Con is a private function. That Con is free to set their standards, such
as comply with the laws and regulations of the host country, state,
province, city, county. And a Con MUST comply with those laws and regs.
Paul
Greylocks <grey...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3CB04FDC...@videotron.ca...
Chris Beilby
"Intrigue" <Intr...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3cb0a6dd...@news.spiritone.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:55:40 -0400, Greylocks <grey...@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Start someplace that many media point at; the conventions.
>
> Well, I have NEVER seen media coverage of a Furcon... Do you have
> some links I might peruse?
Hrmmm. How about the yellow journalistic sensationalism of the Vanity Fair
article or the MTV program? That's what Greylocks was referring to.
Blackberry
>
>I'd say deliberately having gay snogfests in the public hotel lobby and
>spurting semen all over an elevator wall would fall under "wrong" in
>many a person's opinion.
Well, that's now literally and figuratively cleaned up. Next?
Blackberry
>
>The group who set up the con would set up the rules. Anyone who has a
>problem with that would be welcome to stay at home. ;)
Which convention doesn't have rules like this?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
would help and be far less obtrusive and embarassing but furry
cons refuse to do anything that makes much sense.
So do most SF/Anime/Horror/Gaming/Cons then...
Gencon bigest gaming con in the country nope no barcode..
Chiller Theater.. no BADGE even, dinky hospital braclet,
Otakon, nope no barcode, write your own name even....
Games Day, nope, no number...
*looks through a decades worth of badges...
Some have an ID number, just like gee, My AC badge...
Well, I guess all these non-furry cons are just fly-by-nights who'll go drain
because they're behaving nonprofessionally, along with the furrycons...
Or could it be that the companies that ran the commercial conventions had
serious security issues, that far out strip the expense and effort needed to
add "professional" things like barcodes and holographic stickers and the
like...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Jeff Novotny
>
> Zero Tolerance = Zero Reason. I can understand having a stated code of
> conduct at a convention and a staff that is willing to deal with gross
> violations of said code, but imposing police state tactics on convention
> attendees would be way too easy to abuse. Think about what Zero Tolerance
> policies have done to schools. Students being suspended or expelled for
> bringing asprin or a butter knife to school. Certainly if you want to
> introduce an atmosphere of paranoia and fear to a convention then that's a
> great idea. But if you want to have a convention that is actually fun to go
> to then a more balanced policy is needed.
Hi, Akai;
Thanks for your comments. By "zero tolerance", in this context,
Greylocks is talking about serious infractions of major rules that cause
a concern for people's safety, or the well-being of the convention. In
truth, most conventions have already quietly moved to this type of
model. And that has been a positive move for the fandom.
That is all. No police state tactics anywhere. People shouldn't worry
that they are going to get their badge revoked for any minor infraction.
The CACE rules of conduct can be found here:
http://www.c-ace.org/policies.htm As you can see, there is a allowance
for warnings for particular issues which could be considered judgment
calls.
Conventions should be fun. At CACE, we are going to spend much of the
next meeting coming up with fun events for attendees.
Despite what some say, public behavior today at conventions isn't bad.
The conventions have done their part. The problem is a matter of
perception right now, where the media is out and directly looking for
stuff to dig up. CACE is PG-13 rated, so they aren't likely to find much
to scandalize people with here.
Best;
Jeff
Jeff Novotny
>
> Start someplace that many media point at; the conventions.
>
> enforce the rules.
>
> Anyone who breaks the con rules, local or federal laws, and just hang
> out to 'freak the normals' is tossed out immediately.
>
> No excuses, no refund.
In case anyone is curious, the CACE rules of conduct can be found here:
http://www.c-ace.org/policies.htm
I do think that conventions *have* to be beyond reproach. There is too
much potential for damage to the fandom is they are not.
Best;
Jeff Novotny, CACE
Jeff Novotny
>
> Bar codes and readers
> would help and be far less obtrusive and embarassing but furry
> cons refuse to do anything that makes much sense.
This is a nice idea. But it's expensive. And most people wouldn't
notice, really. The money spent on a convention needs to go where people
can see it -- facilities, guests, con suite, equipment, etc. You seem to
forget that most conventions are run as non-profit events by volunteers.
And that the Board of Directors provide a lot of *their own* money to
get it started.
However, *if* you are willing to pay all costs associated with
implementing such a system, then I'm sure many conventions would take
you up on your offer.
Best;
Jeff Novotny, CACE
Jeff Novotny
> The same thing
> applies to the infamous parties: they're in private rooms, _not_ convention
> space, so the convention legally can't take much action unless the activity
> spills over into the convention itself.
Room parties are obviously a completely different story. They are a
private space, not convention space. The only exception would be noise
infractions that impact on other guests.
Best;
Jeff
Greylocks
"G. Raymond Eddy" wrote:
>
>>
> I've spent nearly the last two months working as a gate guard at a
> factory that makes baby formula and adult supplements. Now I've never
> worked security at a convention, so what I'm about to say is strictly
> for the purpose of comparing notes.
>
> Dress code: Security personnel at Ross Labs wear uniforms, are required
> to have their hair cut and be clean shaven. Anthrocon personnel, from
> what I've observed, wear these red shirts and no such furry acoutrements
> as ears and tails. They want to present themselves as presentable, and
> willing to take seriously their job of keeping a strange group of people
> in line. This is commendable.
I ran Anthrocon Security at AC2, co-ran it with Wolf at AC3, then a guy
who worked Anthrocon Security for me at AC 2 and 3 became the Security
Chief for the last two years.
>
> Logs and Incident Reports: One thing that I'm required to do at Ross
> Labs that might be beneficial at a convention is keep a daily log,
> supplemented whereever appropriate by incident reports. Anything a
> security officer observes that (s)he deems out of the ordinary is
> recorded in the daily log, and really big trouble is recorded at length
> in an incident report, supported by photos of the scene of the incident
> whenever people and property are damaged. Does the security at your
> local convention do this?
In all the years Anthrocon was run, the amount of folks actually removed
from the premises was 3. And that's at a con that fills 3 hotels. Pretty
impressive. Much smaller rock concerts and raves have more problems.
So, yes, I can assure you that logs were kept. Knowing Kage and his
choices of crews, this will keep on happening.
Now, as to the question about CACE keeping records, I think you got the
answer :)
Kory Anders
<C...@RUOK36.NAESPAMTAVERYMUCHMATEY.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:
>I respect your careful thinking, you seem like a considerate kind of guy -
>but I don't see any reason why the rules at cons couldn't be the same as the
>"rules" at nightclubs.
>IE:
>There is only one rule. Don't be a wanker.
>
>Now, nobody has to ask for the definition of a wanker. If they do, they're
>a wanker, and we kick them out. :)
>There, that's simple enough. Wankers get kicked out - if Wanker B complains
>about Wanker A being kicked out, we give Wanker B a stern talking-to, and if
>they prove themselves to be really Mouthy Arsehole Wanker B, we tell them
>they've got their head so far up their own arse they can see out of their
>mouth - and we kick them out.
So, what happens if the people kicking out the wankers start acting
like wankers in their zeal to remove the wankers? :)
Greylocks
corner of the convention world.
We want our convention to be fun, safe and sane to everyone, not just
those who think that going to a con means you can suddenly leave your
brain at home. Or that furry cons are nothing but an ongoing orgy.
You can have tons of fun without 'freaking the mundanes'.
Want to have hot sex? You have a room you paid for, use it. The lobby is
not a cool spot for that.
(No to mention that freaking mundanes in the busyest central part of the
capital of a country is not exactly wise. It's almost like doing
something improper on the lawn of the White House. The local authorities
would resolve the issue, we'd only have to watch).
--
Marc Lacourciere
Aka, Greylocks
CACE Operations
Director
www.c-ace.org
Dragon Magic
> like wankers in their zeal to remove the wankers? :)
NO! Paradox perile! AUGH!
(:
Greylocks
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:33:22 GMT, Gabriel Gentile
> <spook...@earthlink.net> (Gabriel Gentile) left the following spoor in
> alt.fan.furry:
>
> >
> > > Have a zero tolerance policy, and folks with the capacity and courage to
> > > enforce the rules.
> >
ilr
"Caveman Joe" <C...@RUOK36.NAESPAMTAVERYMUCHMATEY.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote in message
news:a8qbrm$12m$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Kick out the "Wankers" and there won't be enough attendance to support the Con.
Greylocks
Local Laws and that Canada is not the US?
If a person is removed from the convention, and the convention has
booked the hotel, the person leaves. Of course by the time something
that extreme has happened, hotel staff are aware and in agreement.
By then all other options (documented and witnessed) have been exhausted
already.
What is illegal or freaking the mundanes? Simply put anything that is
against the local laws of decency and conduct. If the police wont
tolerate it on the street, we wont tolerate it inside.
The rules we use are all based on local laws, already on the books,
documented and clear. There is no ambiguity.
I was, however, oversimplifying.
ilr
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wulf...@dm.net> wrote in message news:v881bu8p67m23u2t5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:33:22 GMT, Gabriel Gentile
>
> fire the electrodes out the front -- extending the range for use.
>
Yes they do, God bless 'em. They'll also make the target shit his pants.
Big bonus that, unless of course you're in a very public area and the
Lunch special was Mexican.
-Ilr
Greylocks
conduct are as crystal clear as a team of people could write them.
ilr
"mhirtes" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message news:3CB0C280...@radiks.net...
>
>
> Laugh it up, but the truth remains that if a thread like "Want to clean
> the fandom?" can attract so may replies to it 9and it's sure to keep
> growing), then there must be a lot of dirt that needs sweeping out of it.
Speaking of which...
THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
...rinse, repeat, rim
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a8qfd...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:51:44 +0100, "Caveman wrote:
> >
> >The group who set up the con would set up the rules. Anyone who has a
> >problem with that would be welcome to stay at home. ;)
>
> Which convention doesn't have rules like this?
>
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a8qet...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:24:27 -0500, mhirtes wrote:
> >
> >I'd say deliberately having gay snogfests in the public hotel lobby and
> >spurting semen all over an elevator wall would fall under "wrong" in
> >many a person's opinion.
>
> Well, that's now literally and figuratively cleaned up. Next?
>
American must be exposed and luaghed at with Maximum Cruelty!
-Ilr
Gray Fox
> I'm not even going to try the IF, I'll just start with my own little
> corner of the convention world.
>
> We want our convention to be fun, safe and sane to everyone, not just
> those who think that going to a con means you can suddenly leave your
> brain at home. Or that furry cons are nothing but an ongoing orgy.
>
> You can have tons of fun without 'freaking the mundanes'.
>
> Want to have hot sex? You have a room you paid for, use it. The lobby is
> not a cool spot for that.
I don't think that's been the situation since Confurance 8, which was...4 or
5 years ago.
Most of the cons I've heard about are pretty clean nowadays, and have been
for a few years. Sure, you may have a lot of hugging (of course they'll be.
Some of these people have been communicating with each other for years and
never seen each other in person), but out and out sex inside of the
convention? I don't buy it, especially today since Plushies and Furries
came out. Yes, agreed that the hotel rooms are the best place for that, but
didn't most of the stuff that was recorded in P&F either outside of the
convention or people in hotel rooms?
I don't think Anthrocon 2002 will be like that inside convention. Sure, you
have some people inside of the hotel rooms getting yiffy, but inside the con
itself? With Uncle Kage running the show? Nah. Doubt it.
Gray Fox
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a8q7j...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:55:40 -0400, Greylocks wrote:
> Also, I know that it's just me, but I seem to think that there is enough "room"
> in "furry fandom" even for people I disagree with. How odd.
>
Thank you Mr. Switzerland. The Axis Thanks you as well.
Onyx Dreamer
Are you suggesting that multiple cons should "black list" a person
because someone at one of these cons expelled them? What if they were
expelled because someone didn't like them ? What if for what ever
reason, that persons behavior was atypical of the normal for them? How
far would you go make sure that the person was not even in the hotel
where the con was being held?
What about behavior not in public but that can be used on you "MTV"
special ? (Note the show aired on MTV was created by an indie film
maker) Would you ban the media ? What about con picture on-line and
personal con accounts? Would you decide that interviews after the con
are a violation of your con policy and thus mandating addition to the
'black list' (no trial needed since they are obviously guilty)? Do
you really think that the media won't believe that an embittered
ex-fur giving an explicit interview about the 'evil' that is furry
when said fur can also say that it must be true because they have been
blacklisted?
What would constitute making 'a mess in your party'? Public shows of
affection? Foul language? Excessive silliness? What about persons that
travel thousands of miles to the con? If the con is in the US and the
person had to travel halfway around the world to attend do you think
that you should toss them the moment that they do something you don't
like? Even if it could be a cultural difference (zero tolerance)?
Should they be tossed even if they may be unable to go anywhere for
two more days ?
************
My bottom line is that each con has rules and a security staff. So far
as I have seen (at least at AC) they do a good job. They set policy
that seems to follow simple rules that I like: 'Do unto others" and
'your rights end where my nose begins'. This leaves the cons as they
are supposed to be FUN. Your suggestion that the cons aren't clean
doesn't make sense. I only attend AC and mostly hear reports from the
others. There seem to have been from two to three bad cons out of the
many cons that have been held but these don't seem to be the focus of
the media. If one wants to help the cons then volunteer to help them.
They need help not external regulation and request to start black
listing.
The 'problem' is that no one (slight over generalization) knows what
the furry community is outside of the furry community. This is the
root cause of the problem. The community is not divided in the
knowledge that there are problems but too many KNOW that they have the
answers and if those answers are not done then it is the end of the
world. The first consensus that we must come to is that we need to
address the true form of the questions. Then we have to come to the
understanding that answers may not be the ones that we personally will
like (such as the view that but are solutions that we can all live
with. This can't be done with harsh codes of conduct on congoers. It
can only be accomplished by making the positive works of the fandom
known and the goals of the fandom clear. When people look at furries
and they see persons that have good qualities and good hearts, then
things like the MTV/F&P can't happen. This is the heart of the way to
make for a better fandom.
Greylocks
>
>
> Most of the cons I've heard about are pretty clean nowadays, and have been
> for a few years. Sure, you may have a lot of hugging (of course they'll be.
> Some of these people have been communicating with each other for years and
> never seen each other in person), but out and out sex inside of the
> convention? I don't buy it, especially today since Plushies and Furries
> came out. Yes, agreed that the hotel rooms are the best place for that, but
> didn't most of the stuff that was recorded in P&F either outside of the
> convention or people in hotel rooms?
>
> I don't think Anthrocon 2002 will be like that inside convention. Sure, you
> have some people inside of the hotel rooms getting yiffy, but inside the con
> itself? With Uncle Kage running the show? Nah. Doubt it.
>
> Gray Fox
Oh, I'm not worried about Anthrocon either, never was.
Hugging is cool, laughing is cool. But we all know what 'freaking the
mundanes' means, specially if done intentionally.
All the bad situations are rare, but there's always someone out there
who tries.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>Thanks for your comments. By "zero tolerance", in this context,
>Greylocks is talking about serious infractions of major rules that cause
>a concern for people's safety, or the well-being of the convention. In
>truth, most conventions have already quietly moved to this type of
Exactly. Which conventions do not enforce their rules? What is this crusade
*about*? It seems to just be stirring up emotions and getting people to react
divisively without employing any logic... much like the OCA.
Gabriel Gentile
> Have you ever heard of a joke? :P
So who's joking?
>> Tasers are controlled as firearms in many jurisdictions... You'd
>> need a carry permit to have them.
>>
>> Common "stun guns" aren't under that control as you have to be
>> close enough to make physical contact. Tasers, however, use a gas charge
> to
>> fire the electrodes out the front -- extending the range for use.
Okay, so which ones are the hand held units?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>Why should the only thing Furry explores be its sexuality?
No one has said that at all. I still see no proof that furry fandom is being
ruined by sexuality. Some people are able to point out some other people who
may be overexpressive, but a few people does not a million make.
>There is a whole world of concepts out there. Anthropomorphic art can
>explore them, both in graphics and text.
It already seems to. Nothing needs to change for that to happen.
>Go for Zero Tolerance! Let Furry Never Forget that the world does not
>revolve around them.
What does this mean exactly? What is it that is currently happening that will
not be tolerated?
Gabriel Gentile
on 4/7/02 2:45 PM:
> Certainly if you want to introduce an atmosphere of paranoia and fear to a
> convention then that's a great idea.
You heard the man, boys... LET 'ER RIP!
Blackberry
>
>I'm not even going to try the IF, I'll just start with my own little
>corner of the convention world.
>
>We want our convention to be fun, safe and sane to everyone, not just
>those who think that going to a con means you can suddenly leave your
>brain at home. Or that furry cons are nothing but an ongoing orgy.
>
>You can have tons of fun without 'freaking the mundanes'.
>
>Want to have hot sex? You have a room you paid for, use it. The lobby is
>not a cool spot for that.
>
>(No to mention that freaking mundanes in the busyest central part of the
>capital of a country is not exactly wise. It's almost like doing
>something improper on the lawn of the White House. The local authorities
>would resolve the issue, we'd only have to watch).
Good. Now, please answer: which convention has all this going on, that you're
trying to stop?
Gabriel Gentile
> So, what happens if the people kicking out the wankers start acting
> like wankers in their zeal to remove the wankers? :)
I doubt rather highly that security officials are going to be publicly
swapping spit with each other while giving "Bugger-Me Bunny" the bootaroo.
Gabriel Gentile
> Kick out the "Wankers" and there won't be enough attendance to support the
> Con.
Them how do you explain Zoniecon?
Gabriel Gentile
> Are you suggesting that multiple cons should "black list" a person
> because someone at one of these cons expelled them? What if they were
> expelled because someone didn't like them ? What if for what ever
> reason, that persons behavior was atypical of the normal for them? How
> far would you go make sure that the person was not even in the hotel
> where the con was being held?
Life's tough, get a helmet.
Blackberry
>
>>Also, I know that it's just me, but I seem to think that there is enough "room"
>> in "furry fandom" even for people I disagree with. How odd.
>>
>Thank you Mr. Switzerland. The Axis Thanks you as well.
We have some nice cheese for you all...
Blackberry
Well, yeah, that was kind of ridiculous at Anthrocon. I got lucky, though; I
didn't know where to ask for a parking pass, so I asked the parking gate
attendant; they said it would just get added on to my room bill... but I guess
they forgot to tell the front desk, because it wasn't on the bill when I checked
out.
Blackberry
Oh? What happened there?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>I don't think Anthrocon 2002 will be like that inside convention. Sure, you
>have some people inside of the hotel rooms getting yiffy, but inside the con
>itself? With Uncle Kage running the show? Nah. Doubt it.
In three trips to Anthrocon so far, I've never seen anything even remotely like
that there.
Blackberry
>
>Oh, I'm not worried about Anthrocon either, never was.
>
>Hugging is cool, laughing is cool. But we all know what 'freaking the
>mundanes' means, specially if done intentionally.
>
>All the bad situations are rare, but there's always someone out there
>who tries.
So, if one goes out to Denny's wearing a tail, and someone gets upset by it, one
gets kicked out of your convention?
Greylocks
>
> Please only consider these questions (Do not answer these questions):
>
> My bottom line is that each con has rules and a security staff. So far
> as I have seen (at least at AC) they do a good job. They set policy
> that seems to follow simple rules that I like: 'Do unto others" and
> 'your rights end where my nose begins'. This leaves the cons as they
> are supposed to be FUN. Your suggestion that the cons aren't clean
> doesn't make sense. I only attend AC and mostly hear reports from the
> others. There seem to have been from two to three bad cons out of the
> many cons that have been held but these don't seem to be the focus of
> the media. If one wants to help the cons then volunteer to help them.
> They need help not external regulation and request to start black
> listing.
>
AC does an excellent job. Guess who ran that part of the show for a few
years?
Did you enjoy the safety level there for the last 4 years? I'm
responsible for a good part of that efficiency, along with Wolfe,
Tackybear and of course Kage (he does not suffer fools lightly).
What happened, or not, at AC was the call of a very few people. I was
but one part of that excellent team.
That is how CACE will be run, with the little differences in laws
between countries taken into consideration.
AC follows local, state and federal laws. CACE is the same, just in a
different country with different laws. Application of said laws is not
the same, but the basic concepts are pretty close. What worked for AC
will work for CACE because close to half the Director Staff of CACE was
Director Staff at AC. We'd be stupid not to learn from the excellent
work of the past.
Jeff Novotny
> So, if one goes out to Denny's wearing a tail, and someone gets upset by it, one
> gets kicked out of your convention?
Of course not. Geez. You just like arguing for arguings sake, I guess.
:)
Best;
Jeff Novotny, CACE
Todd Knarr
> If a person is removed from the convention, and the convention has
> booked the hotel, the person leaves. Of course by the time something
> that extreme has happened, hotel staff are aware and in agreement.
It'd be that way here, except that the convention doesn't book the
hotel rooms for the guests. Thus the convention can kick someone out
of the convention area, because they've booked that and control it,
but they can't kick the person out of their hotel room because they
_didn't_ book it or pay for it and it's not theirs to control.
> What is illegal or freaking the mundanes? Simply put anything that is
> against the local laws of decency and conduct. If the police wont
> tolerate it on the street, we wont tolerate it inside.
Same in the US, except that you can do a _lot_ of freaking the mundanes
without ever breaking the law. As I said, I could show up in full leather
gear with 3 slaves in suitable costumes on leashes, and it would be
tacky and tasteless and exactly the sort of thing you probably want to
have dealt with, except that with a little care in the clothing I wouldn't
be breaking a single law by doing it. You wouldn't like it, the police
wouldn't like it, but the _only_ thing they might be able to stretch far
enough to cite me for would be creating a public disturbance and there's
a good chance that wouldn't hold up in court because my appearance was
entirely legal and _I_ wasn't the one making the fuss, it was all the
mundanes freaking out who were creating the disturbance, and if it didn't
fly I could turn around and hit the con, the hotel and the police with
malicious-prosecution and false-arrest charges. Assuming, of course, that
I was an utter asshole out to deliberately set something like that up
to make a point. Which I'm not, thankfully.
--
We won, didn't we? Cope!
-- Mimi, Reality Check #8
Greylocks
>
> Good. Now, please answer: which convention has all this going on, that you're
> trying to stop?
Any con that plans for disasters and worst case scenarios will not have
any of this. Or at the worst if it does happen it's taken care of in
moments.
With the current scrutiny and bad press, it takes very little prodding
to get unwanted attention.
Let's plan and hope those situations dont happen at ANY con. As for
outside a con, nobody can be held responsible for anyone's stupidity.
ilr
"Gabriel Gentile" <spook...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8D65851.13F94%spook...@earthlink.net...
>
> > Kick out the "Wankers" and there won't be enough attendance to support the
> > Con.
>
> Them how do you explain Zoniecon?
>
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>
>>So, if one goes out to Denny's wearing a tail, and someone gets upset by it, one
>> gets kicked out of your convention?
>
>Of course not. Geez. You just like arguing for arguings sake, I guess.
>:)
No, that's what he said -- "freaking mundanes" is grounds for being ejected from
the convention and the hotel. Therefore, it sounds like if *anything* you do
irks someone, you can be kicked out.
Blackberry
Why are you creating such a hue and cry over something that hasn't happened for
many years, doesn't happen, and most likely will not happen in the next several
years?
ilr
ilr
ilr
"Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:a8qb5f$hqf$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Zero Tolerance = Zero Reason. I can understand having a stated code of
> conduct at a convention and a staff that is willing to deal with gross
> violations of said code, but imposing police state tactics on convention
> attendees would be way too easy to abuse. Think about what Zero Tolerance
> policies have done to schools. Students being suspended or expelled for
> bringing asprin or a butter knife to school. Certainly if you want to
> introduce an atmosphere of paranoia and fear to a convention then that's a
> to then a more balanced policy is needed.
>
Well, in my school, you weren't allowed to have a pocket knife over 3" long.
So... Just apply that rule to Anatomically-Correct-Apendages. And no ass
slapping in the hall-ways unless you scored the winning touchdown last night.
Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
>> Also, I know that it's just me, but I seem to think that there is enough
> "room"
>> in "furry fandom" even for people I disagree with. How odd.
>>
> Thank you Mr. Switzerland. The Axis Thanks you as well.
Ah yes, the mandatory allusion to Hitler, even if less direct than normal.
Who would have guessed that this would happen? Who's law was that again?
*pulls up a log and roasts some marshmallows on the flames*
--
- Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
presZeroOn...@umn.edu
(to e-mail me, convert spelled numbers to digits)
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a8qob...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:05:39 GMT, "Paul wrote:
> >
>
> What does this mean exactly? What is it that is currently happening that will
> not be tolerated?
>
as hell won't solve the rest of society's tolerances. So stop asking these stupid
questions as if they're a clever defense, because they're not. Their especially
not warranted for a dumb little NG argument.
And before you say anything about how-tiny the populations that require this
muckraking are, think back to the 10+ large media tabloids that somehow located
them so easily. Whether you care about fellow fan's feelings of insecurity or not,
these things have happened, and saying it doesn't matter won't lessen it's impact to
these people.
-Ilr
Jeff Novotny
> No, that's what he said -- "freaking mundanes" is grounds for being ejected from
> the convention and the hotel. Therefore, it sounds like if *anything* you do
> irks someone, you can be kicked out.
Hmmmm. Looks my smiley emoticon went unnoticed. :)
I guess I don't see wearing a costume or tail as "freaking mundanes". At
least, I don't think that's how the costumers see their craft. Perhaps
this is a matter of semantics or mixed definitions more than anything
else. Either that or I've been around this fandom for too long. :)
I've been to both AnthroCon and Further Confusion and was impressed with
how both of those cons have handled things. It's been well established
at those events that bad behaviour won't be tolerated. A new convention
sometimes has to sound a little strict so that the true troublemakers
don't think that they can get away with there what they can't get away
with elsewhere.
We probably agree more than we think we do. Convention goers have
indicated that they believe that security and press management are high
priority issues, and so any new convention needs to make sure these
issues are addressed.
Please feel free to contact me in e-mail if you'd like to follow this
up. Thanks!
Best;
Jeff Novotny
Blackberry
>
>ilr wrote:
>>> Also, I know that it's just me, but I seem to think that there is enough
>> "room"
>>> in "furry fandom" even for people I disagree with. How odd.
>>>
>> Thank you Mr. Switzerland. The Axis Thanks you as well.
>
>Ah yes, the mandatory allusion to Hitler, even if less direct than normal.
>Who would have guessed that this would happen? Who's law was that again?
>
>*pulls up a log and roasts some marshmallows on the flames*
Was he giving me one of those "If you're not part of the solution, you're part
of the problem" things? I missed it.
ilr
"Adrian Wolf von müden Augen" <presZeroOn...@umn.edu> wrote in message >
> Ah yes, the mandatory allusion to Hitler, even if less direct than normal.
> Who would have guessed that this would happen? Who's law was that again?
>
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>
>>No, that's what he said -- "freaking mundanes" is grounds for being ejected from
>> the convention and the hotel. Therefore, it sounds like if *anything* you do
>> irks someone, you can be kicked out.
>
>Hmmmm. Looks my smiley emoticon went unnoticed. :)
No, it just didn't seem like it was actually a joke. Sorry if I misinterpreted,
but your joke was very much related to the serious point, so I just thought it
was a smiley of friendliness.
>I guess I don't see wearing a costume or tail as "freaking mundanes". At
>least, I don't think that's how the costumers see their craft. Perhaps
>this is a matter of semantics or mixed definitions more than anything
>else. Either that or I've been around this fandom for too long. :)
One can hope that everyone setting the policies and enforcing them are just as
reasonable.
>I've been to both AnthroCon and Further Confusion and was impressed with
>how both of those cons have handled things. It's been well established
>at those events that bad behaviour won't be tolerated. A new convention
>sometimes has to sound a little strict so that the true troublemakers
>don't think that they can get away with there what they can't get away
>with elsewhere.
See, I don't go to every furry convention, but I don't *see* any troublemaking
and I don't hear of any. Who are you trying to warn away?
>We probably agree more than we think we do. Convention goers have
>indicated that they believe that security and press management are high
>priority issues, and so any new convention needs to make sure these
>issues are addressed.
We agree on the ends but not the means.
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a8r14...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:40:35 -0500, Adrian wrote:
>
> Was he giving me one of those "If you're not part of the solution, you're part
> of the problem" things? I missed it.
>
Nah, I was giving you one of those "If you're pretending there's no problem,
you're part of the problem". Though a bit more Wise-Assedly since
I'm trying not to have an ounce of respect for anyone involved in this thread
while they're in said thread.
-Ilr
Blackberry
>
>>What does this mean exactly? What is it that is currently happening that will
>> not be tolerated?
>>
>Forcing posters to go muckraking isn't going to solve their intolerances, and it
>sure
>as hell won't solve the rest of society's tolerances. So stop asking these
>stupid
>questions as if they're a clever defense, because they're not. Their especially
>not warranted for a dumb little NG argument.
It seems to me like he's just trying to drum up righteous indignation against a
made-up foe. We get too much of that as it is. There is no foe in this case.
In addition to that, he's singling out people as specific foes by implication.
I don't think that's healthy for anyone.
>And before you say anything about how-tiny the populations that require this
>muckraking are, think back to the 10+ large media tabloids that somehow located
>them so easily. Whether you care about fellow fan's feelings of insecurity or
>not,
>these things have happened, and saying it doesn't matter won't lessen it's
>impact to
>these people.
Yes, but still, just because one person in one article in one magazine said or
did something does not mean that (a) a million furry fans all do it
simultaneously and (b) they all do it at every furry convention possible.
Jeff Novotny
> No, it just didn't seem like it was actually a joke. Sorry if I misinterpreted,
> but your joke was very much related to the serious point, so I just thought it
> was a smiley of friendliness.
Oh, I was referring to the last sentence of my post about arguing for
arguing's sake (the one two posts ago). But it's a friendly smiley too;
I like being friendly. :)
>
> One can hope that everyone setting the policies and enforcing them are just as
> reasonable.
Everyone will do their best to be very reasonable. And our director of
security is excellent, as well. You can count on good judgment from him.
I guess that's about it from me. Thanks for the comments!
Best;
Jeff
Sean Wilkinson
"ilr" <i...@CHILLIESriflenet.net> wrote in message
news:a8qm5p$h7u$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> Speaking of which...
> THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
> THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
> THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
>
> ...rinse, repeat, rim
Greatest PKB variant ever.
- Sean
Gray Fox
>
> Why are you creating such a hue and cry over something that hasn't
happened for
> many years, doesn't happen, and most likely will not happen in the next
several
> years?
Agreed. Nothing Merlino-style has happened at any of the cons I've known
about for a few years. I'm new, but I've researched into past stuff and
Google archives, and there hasn't been a situation like the one you've
described in at least 3 years. Not at AC, not at Confurance (under new
management since #8 as a result of the carnage that occured there), Mephit
Furmeet, Midwest Fur Fest. I don't know about Furry Spring Break, though.
Haven't looked at that since FSB isn't going to be around no more.
Gray Fox
Gray Fox
> Mephit obviously didn't
Care to share?
Gray Fox
Gray Fox
> Everyone in Arizona IS a Wanker!
As a native of Arizona and someone who still likes it, I detest that remark.
Gray Fox
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<C...@RUOK36.NAESPAMTAVERYMUCHMATEY.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:
> I respect your careful thinking, you seem like a considerate kind of guy -
> but I don't see any reason why the rules at cons couldn't be the same as the
> "rules" at nightclubs.
> IE:
> There is only one rule. Don't be a wanker.
Given that 90% of people are wankers and the other 10% lie.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Don Sanders
says...
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:02:04 -0400, "Gray wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >I don't think Anthrocon 2002 will be like that inside convention. Sure, you
> >have some people inside of the hotel rooms getting yiffy, but inside the con
> >itself? With Uncle Kage running the show? Nah. Doubt it.
>
> In three trips to Anthrocon so far, I've never seen anything even remotely like
> that there.
>
That seems to be the point of those who go on about conventions being
the pit of evil they fear. 5 Anthrocons, nothing outrageous noted
outright, except for behind the scenes stuff that somehow get
plastered on the newsgroups, twisted and distorted to make it look
like all hell has broken loose.
It also does not help when the only voices heard are those on the
higher ground of the fandom. It seems to me nobody listens to the
average Joe convention goer, only those who either sell art or provide
a service to the convention.
Yep, harsh tones coming from me and heck, I either expect to get
flamed or not be heard through the numerous killfiles I'm resting in.
Just as well.
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
says...
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:25:40 -0600, "ilr" wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> >> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:51:44 +0100, "Caveman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The group who set up the con would set up the rules. Anyone who has a
> >> >problem with that would be welcome to stay at home. ;)
> >>
> >> Which convention doesn't have rules like this?
> >>
> >Mephit obviously didn't
>
> Oh? What happened there?
>
>
Chances are they won't say, only that whatever happened was something
they did not like and would want to share it with the rest of the
fandom.
--
Don Sanders.
Yea, I'm posting again, get used to it!
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<j.no...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Akai wrote:
>>
>> Zero Tolerance = Zero Reason. I can understand having a stated code of
>> conduct at a convention and a staff that is willing to deal with gross
>> violations of said code, but imposing police state tactics on convention
>> attendees would be way too easy to abuse. Think about what Zero Tolerance
>> policies have done to schools. Students being suspended or expelled for
>> bringing asprin or a butter knife to school. [...]
> Thanks for your comments. By "zero tolerance", in this context,
> Greylocks is talking about serious infractions of major rules that cause
> a concern for people's safety, or the well-being of the convention.
Thats not "Zero Tolerance" thats "Resonable enforcement". Zero
tolerance is the policy that minor actions should get the highest
possable punishment rather then a minor intermedite one.
ferret
> If you could create and get people to accept and implement a standard
> set of base rules that all cons & associated staff & attendees could
> follow, perhaps allowing some deviation and/or additions based upon
> locality and clientele etc, it might just work.
> IF is the word though.
Acutally, most of the furry cons now in existance have pretty similar
rules of conduct. The vast majority of the attendees follow the rules
both in letter and in spirit. There are always a few who try to push
things though. The main sticking point is that blackballing somebody for
their actions at somebody else's convention can get you sued as well as
the convention that gave the information at least in the U.S. If that
weren't the case, it would be a lot easier to drive out troublemakers. I
don't think anybody is naive enough not to realize that that information
does make the rounds, but it can't be acted on directly to say so and so
isn't welcome at any convention.
ferret
>
> So, what happens if the people kicking out the wankers start acting
> like wankers in their zeal to remove the wankers? :)
Those responsible for sacking those who were just sacked, have been sacked. The
credits have been completed in a totally different style and at great expense.
;-)
Gabriel Gentile
> Everyone in Arizona IS a Wanker!
Right, I'll just... be... standing... over here.
[slooooowly backs away from the little man with the death-wish]
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
>> Why are you creating such a hue and cry over something that hasn't
>> happened for many years, doesn't happen, and most likely will not
>> happen in the next several years?
>Agreed. Nothing Merlino-style has happened at any of the cons I've known
>about for a few years. I'm new, but I've researched into past stuff and
>Google archives, and there hasn't been a situation like the one you've
>described in at least 3 years.
OK, guys, please try to follow the logic here...
It is generally accepted as fact that a considerable amount (though not
necessarily all) of the CF8 freakshow was brought on by the convention
having been promoted in several of the local area's "alternative-lifestyle
publications", which in turn brought out a greater-than-usual number of
people who were not necessarily furry fans, or who were led to believe (via
the above promotion) that the con was something other than it was, or who
were just plain curiosity-seekers.
Now, _that_ is something that (to my knowledge) has not occurred since
CF8 either. HOWEVER... in the past year or two, we have had the
conventions being promoted to an even _larger_ audience[*], in a flagrantly
sensationalistic manner, as being something other than what they are
intended to be. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for convention staff
and security to assume - and be prepared for - the non-zero probability
that this undesirable publicity may _also_ bring out a greater-than-usual
number of curiosity seekers, non-fans, and people who are under the
mistaken belief that the con is something other than what it is.
[*] (And please, don't try the lame response of "Who actually _reads_
Vanity Fair?" or "Who actually watches MTV anymore?" These aren't fanzines
being produced as a labor of love in someone's basement with a secondhand
photocopier and a heavy-duty stapler from OfficeMax; these are
million-dollar businesses with loads of capital equipment, office space,
dozens of people on salaries, advertisers who expect an audience to be
delivered, and shareholders who expect those dividend checks to arrive on
schedule. Obviously, enough people watch and read them to keep them in
business and keep the advertisers and shareholders happy, or else they
would have folded up shop by now.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the children" - the phrase politicians use to justify a course of action
so irrational it cannot be justified in any other way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ferret
> Second, civil law and criminal law are two very separate
> things. While carefully stating rules and making customers aware
> of them in advance may help a con organization avoid a fraud or
> similar charge, civil courts place a MUCH higher burden on the
> defendant, especially businesses which con organizations are,
> and it would be very simple as most cons exist to win a lawsuit.
>
I don't know about simple. It would depend on the lawsuit. One reason
most conventions these days are run by an incorporated parent
organization is to limit liability. I can promise I wouldn't be on staff
for any cons where my own financial but was on the line. I know at least
two instances where the fact that the corporation had essentially no
assets worth the time and cost of filing a suite was enough to stop said
suite from being pursued. Provided there isn't any actual criminal
actions taken by the staff or corporate board members, a convention is
pretty much lawsuit-proof.
> While you may think that the cost of a con ticket puts it in
> small claims court, the fact that cons are well known and easily
> assumed to be by any normal rational person a place to meet for
> social and business reasons, unfair and improper eviction from
> the convention may be claimed to cause emotional and/or economic
> damages in the thousands.
At that point, the corporate board would likely have to decide whether
to spend what was in the coffers to pay a lawyer to defend the suit with
the likely result that even if they won, they'd have little or nothing
left, or simply donate the funds to charity, disband the corporation and
render the lawsuit moot. I suppose a settlement offer might be a
possibility, but there'd be no point in that unless enough would be left
to keep the convention running. I hope we never see a furry convention
have to make that choice.
>
> There are far more than enough people who are not out for
> Kevin Duane's head to make a similar situation legally dicey
> should the subject not become as violent as KD is alleged to
> have been. Such an individual could then sue for loss of
> business and win very easily.
>
> Not one con in this fandom is run professionally enough to
> cut the risk of lawsuit down enough to withstand the sort of
> actions you propose. It would require legally viable disclaimers
> being signed IN ADVANCE OF *ANY* EXCHANGE OF MONIES by EACH con-
> goer/customer in their LEGAL NAME and NOT their furry name. The
> rules would have to be specific and in-depth and not simply left
> to the discretion of con staff as would penalties. ANY unequal
> application of the rules would essentially void those rules come
> lawsuit time.
>
> As an aside, since many furs prefer their privacy, con
> badges should have their furry name and not their private name
> on the front with their legal name on the BACK where it is only
> visible on con staff inspection and the their furry name
> accompanied by a number which corresponds to their real name in
> the database, entered at registration. Bar codes and readers
> would help and be far less obtrusive and embarassing but furry
> cons refuse to do anything that makes much sense.
>
> I used to work for a con company that worked for the
> manufacturing trades and did business with Fortune 50
> corporations and have attended Eastec for years. NO WAY IN HELL
> should ANY con be run ANY less professionally if it wants to
> survive as anything other than a party. Since Anthrocon and
> ConFurenece and so forth aspire to be more, they have to
> actually start acting like it. ESPECIALLY since registration
> with government agencies is needed. I do believe Anthrocon is a
> non-profit? Extra regs there too.
>
> But then this is furrydom where no one ever seems to grasp
> that the real world has certain rules that CANNOT be ignored or
> avoided for long. Right now, I have to figure a way to put some
> NEC and OSHA concerns to some installers. Non-firestopped
> penetrations with non-plenum cable? Drilling through asbestos?
> *sigh*
> - - -Wayd Wolf
>
> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQEVAwUBPLCCuV++AtGF8mi1AQGEMQgAuiJnUu3IBShCWhHaN+hefWqwxh2wkVoc
> 5xcvB9D8FtkMkwLp/2s4GvaDTlHx4HS6rNl1uyp3FlIxrhn9Ura0Tcj7n0nopI6f
> Yk+1fG6Euy5QS7XYN/aVmhCSVrSeRkz4dWX+OiQXKZGAGGCnyvatk7MLj65sePvp
> Bb3yy7T1pAru4H2n81qlljZR07obH2INEMTrkHnjytXrcimwap/vWkMN8pKhVqZM
> 8jk/b8iSFdCqdV0Yf7QaiNSFu7l7mU/TtLaWFhWSDxfHHT8ohxQpFA7oClJfsQf8
> UcwF1OE9xL3wbBr0EfoBKc0DvIwDB0zu1DFvdWlTMYHIH4iP6CalfA==
> =sGHq
> - -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQA/AwUBPLCCvpBTrwXxuNq0EQLmNgCglz+HwkQQEBp1T3gkBfUEGquca/kAoPzO
> 43SSR3G5ccr/52/ecagW+Nu9
> =fVu9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
> What the heck, I can't sleep -- went out to check. I'm carrying an
>O-Mega Network Inc. model in the Cherokee... Relatively weak compared to
>some of the newer ones -- only 120KV.
"Only" 120KV, he says... :) Having been hit with capacitive discharges
of considerably smaller voltage than that (ahh, the joys of working with
high-voltage electronics!), I can assure you that 120KV is _more_ than
enough to get your attention.
Besides which, it isn't the voltage, it's the current behind it - it
all depends on how much of a charge that wand stores up. 15KV, with the
full charge of a 5,000uF capacitor behind it, was enough to knock _me_ back
a few paces... Heck, even those "soda can" capacitors they use in big
linear power supplies can put the bite on you when fully charged, and
they're usually only sitting at 12 - 15V !
ferret
>
> Well, in my school, you weren't allowed to have a pocket knife over 3" long.
I bet that rule is a bit different now. As far as I know, there was no actual policy
on knives at the high school I went to and there were no incidents due to that
either. That's because knives were looked at as tools and it was pretty much
understood that if you used one in an irresponsible manner, that there would be some
severe consequenses. In other words, the students were trusted to have at least a bit
of common sense unless and until they showed they didn't have any.
That's about the only way you can realistically run con security. Trust the majority
to show a little common sense and obey the listed rules. Then you deal with those
very few who don't in a manner commensurate with the offense. I've not seen or heard
of many instances where outright booting/banning somebody was necessary to to correct
the problem. Usually a polite reminder of the rule in question at the time is all it
takes. That seems to work pretty well and avoids having a con end up looking like a
police state.
AJL
> So, if one goes out to Denny's wearing a tail, and someone gets upset by it, one
> gets kicked out of your convention?
Here come the armchair attorney "Trolls". I saw this coming when you
first mentioned this thread, Greylocks.
When you set rules in stone, someone *always* tries to find a loophole.
Not because they are genuinely confused by it, but becuase they want to
start a flamewar.
I dub thee "Armchair Attorney Trolls"
--Darrel.
AJL
> See, I don't go to every furry convention, but I don't *see* any troublemaking
> and I don't hear of any. Who are you trying to warn away?
If you don't see it then the conveniton staff and security are doing
their job. Obviously, you haven't run a convention yourself or you'd
*know* the shit that inevitably goes on.
Take several hundred fans and put them together in a social atmosphere.
Remove responsibility for damages ("Hey, it's not *my* hotel, so why not
screw it up?") and see if a few vandals drop out of the bunch and try to
ruin the fun for the rest of us.
It happens at EVERY convention that has those ingredients. That's why
there needs to be strict enforcement, but levelled with discretion, just
like everything else.
--Darrel.
AJL
> Agreed. Nothing Merlino-style has happened at any of the cons I've known
> about for a few years. I'm new, but I've researched into past stuff and
> Google archives, and there hasn't been a situation like the one you've
> described in at least 3 years. Not at AC, not at Confurance (under new
> management since #8 as a result of the carnage that occured there)
Bit of a Correction / Clarification here: Mark and Rodney stepped down
as Co-chairs (suffering from burnout) after CF10, not CF8. The
ConFurence Group started business the day after that con was over.
A month earlier at a Staff Meeting, Zsa'nene Klinkler and I were voted
into taking their place as Co-chairs when Mark and Rodney made the
announcement CF10 would be the last one they were running. I was
nominated for the position by Rodney himself.
--Darrel.
AJL
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 13:28:03 -0400, Greylocks wrote:
> >Or to make it even simpler; Want to mess up my party? Then leave.
>
> Why are you the one who sets the rules?
Because he is one of the people who puts their sweat and money into
bringing the convention to people like you. When a good portion of your
life is being spent on creating a fun environment, and some takes a crap
in it, then you start getting a bit protective.
The persons who are making the rules are the ones who have the greatest
stake in things going well and enjoyable for everyone. Trust in them
that the rules are not simply to put *you* in your place but rather to
make sure that no one else can knock you out of place.
Who watches the watchmen? You do. If the rules actually get in your
way when attending a convention, then vote with your dollars and don't
attend. If the rules don't affect you personally, then why the hell are
you bitching about it? The balance of the system in place is that if
the rules are too strict, people won't have fun; If the rules are too
loose, people won't have fun because of the few who exploited the rest.
Convention committees know this balance from experience and enforce the
rules based on the proper balance for the most people to be able ot have
fun at the con.
Get it?
Your whole line of reasoning on this thread seems to be "If I didn't
seen anything, then it must not have happened." Well, since when did
you become an omnipotent being? You have been everywhere and seen
everything, have you?
Feh.
--Darrel.
Eisenschwarz.
wrote:
>Speaking of which...
>THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
>THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
>THE VACUUM TOLD THE DUSTBUSTER IT SUCKS
>
>...rinse, repeat, rim
>
>
Your reasoning follows the Von Domarus Principle,
It is therefore flawed and worthless.
Go now.
___
Golgotha - had seen nothing else but
A carpenter's death
Golgotha - not more maybe not even that