Skip to Main Content
David Gillon (
2018-10-26 12:24 pm (UTC)
Good response (not that anything else was possible)
I read Crystal Huff's account earlier, and however you consider the evidence (not that I'm doubting her), there's something seriously amiss with the way it's been handled.
If someone has been banned from any con on a safety issue, never mind three (or was it four?) for stalking, there's simply no way you can responsibly place them in a position of authority over safety at your con. The liability issues it invites for Arisia are mind-boggling.
Equally you can't restrict someone from interacting with someone else, and then appoint them to oversight of the safety function. Except if you are using the restriction as smoke and mirrors for doing nothing. Which itself says that the safety function at Arisia is not fit for purpose.
All this goes double if you're the President of the con. And if you're the President of the con, having been banned from multiple other cons for stalking, then something is seriously wrong with the entire structure and management of the con. Even if you want to bluff it out, putting yourself at the top of the safety management tree is just stupid, because it pretty much guarantees someone is going to say "Wait, what!?!"
I'm not sure anything short of the Readercon response would be adequate.
Reply to this
Thread from start
Post a comment in response:
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address.
Sign in using OpenID
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Log in with OpenID?
Forget your password?
Site and Journal Search
Buy Dreamwidth Services
Gift a Random User
Site and Account