![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
There's a lot I want to say about the Readercon failure, but other people have said most of what I wanted to say already -- and my RSI is acting up, so typing is a bad idea.
Two things I think need saying, though:
1. The Board is not the Concom, and the Board is not Readercon. The Board can be replaced without the convention ending...and it is my opinion that it should be replaced due to its failure to respect its own declared policies. Perhaps the members that supported this decision can "retroactively retire".
2. I haven't yet asked for my money back for next year's preregistration. I will if I have to (see #1 for why I might not have to), and if so I will then turn around and donate it to BARCC. (Sure, the policy says "non-refundable but transferable" -- but hey, Readercon's policies are made to be broken.)
Two things I think need saying, though:
1. The Board is not the Concom, and the Board is not Readercon. The Board can be replaced without the convention ending...and it is my opinion that it should be replaced due to its failure to respect its own declared policies. Perhaps the members that supported this decision can "retroactively retire".
2. I haven't yet asked for my money back for next year's preregistration. I will if I have to (see #1 for why I might not have to), and if so I will then turn around and donate it to BARCC. (Sure, the policy says "non-refundable but transferable" -- but hey, Readercon's policies are made to be broken.)
no subject
Date: 2012-07-28 20:43 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-28 21:22 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-28 21:32 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 01:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 15:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-28 21:38 (UTC)I hope that there will be steps taken to repair the damage. I've never been to Readercon, though I had heard good things in the past and had it on the "maybe someday or if I move to the area" list. But I do care, because even if it's not a Con I'm invested in, the nature of fandom and Cons means that what happens at one Con can spill over to others. Sometimes, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's even awesome.
In a case like this, I expect other Cons will be thinking of what they might need to do in terms of their own harassment policies - even if they decide the policies in place are fine, I expect the discussion will happen. It would be nice to see Readercon decide to set a better precedent than what they've done so far, or other Cons will be seeing the discussion as one of how not to make the mistakes that Readercon's board has made thus far.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 01:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 14:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-28 23:11 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 01:29 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-29 18:14 (UTC)That for me undid all the good that Rosefox has done by her clear stand on this. My opinion is irrelevant to those who are responsible for Readercon finances, since I'm highly unlikely to go to another US con. But at this point I want to know the names of every member of the board and concom who did not stand up and say "the board has just said it's okay to assault and stalk someone if you're a BNF and claim to be sorry afterwards, and I'm not okay with that". I want to know so I can make damn sure I never go to *any* con they have any hand in, because they have just made it extremely clear that they believe that a no-name like me is fair game for predatory behaviour, *even* *if* *I* *have* *witnesses*.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-02 19:35 (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2012-09-02 06:25 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-02 07:01 (UTC)