DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

Soon after the 2021 Hugo Awards finalists were announced, Chris Logan Edwards asked in comments here, “How is ‘George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun’ not a violation of the DisCon III Code of Conduct?” That eye-catching phrase is attached to a Best Related Work finalist whose complete title is “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”, Natalie Luhrs (Pretty Terrible, August 2020).

The specific issue is that DisCon III disseminated this phrase on its website, in press releases, and on YouTube – and in doing so the committee itself (not Natalie Luhrs’ blog publication) violated their own Code of Conduct.

The applicable parts of DisCon III’s Code of Conduct are —

We do not tolerate harassment of convention attendees in any form. Behavior that will be considered harassment includes, but is not limited to…

Comments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort including telling others they are not welcome and should leave…

We require attendees to follow the CoC in online interactions with the convention (including the volunteer mailings, wiki, and other online facilities), at all convention venues and convention-related social activities.

I sent Edwards’ question to several committee members together with the request, “If your immediate thought is that the Hugo voters can trump your Code of Conduct, please explain why you think that.”

DisCon III’s decision to broadcast this phrase on their own platform means they also are committing to having it repeated over and over again in all their venues. As Elio M. García, Jr. explained in another comment here:

Websites around the world have amplified that a member of the WSFS should fuck off. Every official publication that lists the nomination is telling a member of the WSFS to fuck off. The Hugo Nominees discussion panel will have people talking about how GRRM (and Robert Silverberg) should fuck off. On the night of the ceremonies, the screen, the presenter, the sign language interpreter will be announcing to an audience of hundreds that specific members of the WSFS should fuck off.

(Garcia is webmaster of Westeros, a George R.R. Martin fan site not run by the author.)

Tonight Adam Beaton, the Worldcon’s Outreach Division Head, emailed the committee’s reply to my question:

Our response for publication is, “DisCon III does not publicly comment on potential Code of Conduct matters.”

Have a great day, Mike!

The leadership is going to find out how hard it is to administer a Code of Conduct they are unwilling to publicly account to themselves.

Screencap of Malka Older announcing the 2021 Best Related Work Hugo finalists on April 14.

772 thoughts on “DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

  1. StefanB: Kyel: I found the Chuck Tingle less an embaresment than some other titles on that shortlist. It contains the word butt, but shrug.

    I saw the original Tingle nomination through the filter of Vox Day’s purpose to “destroy” the Hugos. Tingle turned out to be amusing as hell, though, and I have included many items about him in the Scroll since then. Him trolling Vox Day back was priceless.

  2. Harold Osler: I’ll share a secret with you. I knew there would be people who would think about giving me the GRRM treatment, because I’ve been to elementary school, and know that some of the things people learn to do there they never outgrow. Or @NeolithicSheep
    Courtney Milan may remember he’s an adult and wonder if it’s really worth the investment of time to do.

    Edited to correctly attribute the quote.

  3. Mike: I really, really, wish you had left that last sentence about Courtney Milan off of your last post. Of all the people in the world, she has direct personal experience of what it’s like to have a CoC weaponized against her in a massive way for discussing problematic behavior of other members of the RWA community in her own media space. Of course she is going to be predisposed to understand your call for a CoC investigation as a call to sanction Luhrs for writing that essay, based on her own experience. And she started her Twitter involvement with a very reasonable request for people to explain the harm to the rest of our community from the nomination. I don’t know if anyone successfully did that, Twitter not being the best medium for doing so, but we really should leave her out of this.

  4. Re: Courtney Milan’s twitter, she can’t control what people say in reply to her, and that tweet wasn’t her own.

  5. Does GRRM feel hurt by the blog post, the fact that it is on the ballot, and/or the title? Probably. Does it make him feel less welcome or even unwelcome? Also, probably. However, this all still has its roots in his own behaviour …

    Is there anything that could have been said about GRRM in the title of a nominated work that you would regard as too offensive for DisCon to repeat?

    If not, then “anything goes” is the rule and I think that has obvious flaws that future nominators will exploit. It only takes 20 to 30 nominators at present participation levels.

    Personally, I’d like there to be standards a Worldcon holds itself to and “GRRM can fuck off into the sun” doesn’t meet them. Referring to the work by the secondary title “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)” is an appropriate and fair response.

  6. @rcade on April 20, 2021 at 10:25 am said:

    Is there anything that could have been said about GRRM in the title of a nominated work that you would regard as too offensive for DisCon to repeat?

    As I’ve said before: Context is important.

    I don’t think it’s useful to try to put down a hard-and-fast rule about “this phrase is OK, that phrase is not” because it’s possible to construct scenarios where an “OK” phrase could be used in a highly damaging way, and a “prohibited” phrase would actually be perfectly fine considering the context.

    If not, then “anything goes” is the rule

    It is not – it just means that the rule is not as simple as “this is OK and that is not”, that more things have to be considered than just the phrase itself.

    and I think that has obvious flaws that future nominators will exploit. It only takes 20 to 30 nominators at present participation levels.

    … which is where context has to come in and be used in sorting the ‘OK’ from the ‘ Not OK’.

  7. … which is where context has to come in and be used in sorting the ‘OK’ from the ‘ Not OK’.

    Can you expand on that? There’s never been any “sorting” of the Hugo nominees in that past that I’m aware of, other than for votes received; in 1989 there was a case of ballot stuffing but the work — The Guardsman by Todd Hamilton and P. J. Beese — was withdrawn, not kicked off the ballot. None of the Puppy offerings were kicked off the ballot, including the ones that were clearly attacks on Rachel Swirsky (despite a lot of support for doing so, and that is in fact how GRRM decided who should get an Alfie — he just kicked the Puppy works right off the ballot and awarded the prizes to the people who would have won without them.) The Ron L. Hubbard books stayed on the ballot despite the obvious concerted campaign by Scientologists to get them there.

    Who would get to decide that a work was “Not OK”, and if that determination was made, what would be done about it? As of now, the only thing that’s been done is to leave the works on the ballot and hope they get voted under No Award. Are you suggesting that should change?

    Is the idea that Luhrs’ essay would be “OK” but a nominated essay called “Natalie Luhrs Should Fuck Off Into the Sun: or: The 2021 Hugo Awards Nominees (RageBlog Edition)” would not? Would it depend on exactly what was said about Luhrs in the essay? And if so, again, who decides?

  8. Maytree on April 20, 2021 at 12:11 pm said:

    … which is where context has to come in and be used in sorting the ‘OK’ from the ‘ Not OK’.

    Can you expand on that?

    No, I can not. To even make such an attempt, I’d have to delve into lots of speculation and what-ifs and areas of Hugo administration about which I have no idea what’s going on.

    My point was simply that, while it may be tempting to put in rules that say “phrase ‘a b c’ is OK, phrase ‘d e f’ is not”, that tries to over-simplify something that is, by its very nature, complex and very much dependent not only on one specific phrasing of a title of a nominated work, but about so much more in the context surrounding the work.

  9. My point was simply that, while it may be tempting to put in rules that say “phrase ‘a b c’ is OK, phrase ‘d e f’ is not”, that tries to over-simplify something that is, by its very nature, complex and very much dependent not only on one specific phrasing of a title of a nominated work, but about so much more in the context surrounding the work.

    Yes. I would contend it’s far too complex to expect it to even be possible with the Hugos as their administration now stands. If it became some sort of jury award then the jury could come up with a set of rules for OK vs. Not OK, but with the award the way it is, there’s no feasible way to create a set of rules to distinguish the “OK” nominees from the “Not OK” nominees and take action on this designation. Were you suggesting that the “Not OK” nominees should be left off the ballot despite having gotten the requisite number of votes for inclusion? If that’s what you had in mind, then again we have to go back to “Who decides and how?” A rule of “We know what’s Not Ok when we see it” a la Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward with regard to pornography would be very unlikely to fly.

  10. I think it is easier to definition what is not okay at last in the titel.
    Maytree your are right, neither we nor Worldcon can’t kick of nominees of the ballot.
    And this is what I was trying to get at.
    I am going only after titles, because those are those that are published by worldcon.
    Because even if a work is a personal attack, if it isn’t in the title, the attacked doesn’t have to hear the attack all the time.
    And if the material is not in the title, but in the work itself, we have the no-Awardoption or the option that worldcon can refuse to put somethink in the voterspakage or for example File 770 could refuse to link to it. (I should make clear, that this is about the hypothetical future titel, not the Blockpost)
    Any judgementcall that invols context is for the Hugoaward not realistic.

    And forgotten Mike please be careful. I didn’t find it funny, that you made the same mistake, that a lot of people make about here. Atributing a comment from the space of a person to the person him/herself (or other pronom, it it fits)

    Edit: Not taken in acount the last two posts.

  11. @Maytree on April 20, 2021 at 12:21 pm said:

    Were you suggesting that the “Not OK” nominees should be left off the ballot despite having gotten the requisite number of votes for inclusion?

    Again, No, I was not making any specific suggestions about what “should be done” – on the contrary, I was simply pointing out that there is no “simple clear rule” that can be put into place about “this phrase is OK, this phrase is not” that would not end up being wrong, or could be gamed; because there is so much context that matters outside of a specific phrase used in the title of a work.

  12. @Christian Brunschen:

    Than your rule is anythink goes or should go.
    I am not confortable with that.

  13. Kevin Standlee had a proposal for Three Step Voting (3SV) as an alternative to EPH. It would have moved “No Award” one step earlier where works could have been dismissed from longlist by membership before the finalists were selected.

    In the end EPH made fewer changes to the voting system and 3SV was seen as having more potential disadvantages, such as fights over 15 works instead of five.

    But it was an interesting proposal.

  14. I was simply pointing out that there is no “simple clear rule” that can be put into place about “this phrase is OK, this phrase is not” that would not end up being wrong, or could be gamed; because there is so much context that matters outside of a specific phrase used in the title of a work.

    Yes. Which is why JJ said (I believe, sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth JJ) that “anything goes” when it comes to nominations, if they get enough votes. Your response to that was (paraphrased) “No, we can just figure out what’s OK and what’s Not OK from context etc.”. I disagree. I don’t think we can do that, at least without fundamentally changing the nature of the Hugos, so JJ’s point that “anything goes” when it comes to personal attacks in Hugo nominations stands.

    In other words, it’s now Open Season on personal attacks in Hugo nominations, regardless whether they’re in good faith or bad faith. And I think you can guess who will overwhelmingly be targeted by this once the alt-right crew get wind of the possibility — BIPOC, LBGTQIA, anyone too “left” for them (like Scalzi) or just someone they don’t like (OGH), and so on and so on. The folks who nominated Luhrs’ piece may be heading for a painful encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences and dragging the rest of us along with them.

  15. StefanB on April 20, 2021 at 12:50 pm said:

    @Christian Brunschen:

    Than your rule is anythink goes or should go.
    I am not confortable with that.

    No it’ isn’t. It just means that the process for deciding things can’t be “there’s a simple clear rule” – because these situations are not necessarily clear and simple.

    In the case of laws, there are judges with deep legal training, there are juries that are given instructions and have to determine the facts based on all sorts of evidence presented to them (and with rules and determinations about what evidence is permitted to be seen and/or considered).

    Similar things apply to codes of conduct. While there are rules, they also are going to be applied and interpreted by people, including (hopefully) looking at a totality of circumstances – context not limited to just a single word or single instant of a longer sequence of interactions.

    There pretty much has to be some human judgement involved – because this is a complex thing that does not follow simple, clear lines.

    But a lack of being able to provide simple, clear lines does not mean that “everything goes” – it just means that the determination of what does or does not go is not so simple, more complex, requiring more context … which is what I’ve been saying.

  16. But a lack of being able to provide simple, clear lines does not mean that “everything goes” – it just means that the determination of what does or does not go is not so simple, more complex, requiring more context … which is what I’ve been saying.

    And we get right back to:

    1) Who will make this determination?
    2) What will they base it on?
    3) What will be the results of the decision?

    Saying “Oh I’m sure people can figure something out if they’re motivated enough” won’t cut it — who is going to bell this cat?

    At least a bright line like “No personal attacks on living people will be accepted as Hugo nominees” is clear. Something like “No personal attacks on living people will be accepted as Hugo nominees unless we think that the person targeted really deserves it, given the context” is, I think, clearly not workable. Note that I’m not suggesting this be applied to Luhrs’ essay since that’s past and done, and it shouldn’t be grandfathered regardless. But the inclusion of this work in the nominees list has opened a can of worms for the Hugos going forward and they are not going to go back into that can.

  17. Maytree on April 20, 2021 at 12:56 pm said:

    I was simply pointing out that there is no “simple clear rule” that can be put into place about “this phrase is OK, this phrase is not” that would not end up being wrong, or could be gamed; because there is so much context that matters outside of a specific phrase used in the title of a work.

    Yes. Which is why JJ said (I believe, sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth JJ) that “anything goes” when it comes to nominations, if they get enough votes. Your response to that was (paraphrased) “No, we can just figure out what’s OK and what’s Not OK from context etc.”. I disagree. I don’t think we can do that, at least without fundamentally changing the nature of the Hugos,

    I didn’t say “we can just figure this out from context” – I have tried to say “figuring this out requires looking at context as well as the specific phrasing”. This is not something that is necessarily simple and easy in the general case – so it’s not a “just” (in the sense of ‘simple, easy’) thing; it’s by definition more difficult than just looking at the phrasing and comparing it against a list of permitted-or-banned words/phrases.

    But tThere are always determinations to be made – including whether something qualifies as a “Novel”. The example of the Silmarillion already shows that this may needs more attention than a single person, in order to allow determinations that are not quite so clear-cut – such as any determinations that might arise out of this in the future.

    This doesn’t “fundamentally change the nature of the Hugos”; it makes one aspect of administering them a bit more difficult in the future, perhaps, depending on what is actually nominated; and difficult in large part because there are no simple easy rules, but that these sorts of issues require looking beyond very simple measurable things, including context.

  18. I personally would go with “no personal insult in the titel” because this is the current problem. and I am sorry Maytree I am not optimistic that your suggestion would have a chance in the buisness meating.
    (also I think mine is easier to controll for the Hugoadministrators)
    A risk is allways there, but we have (less strong messures) to deal with them.

  19. This doesn’t “fundamentally change the nature of the Hugos”; it makes one aspect of administering them a bit more difficult in the future, perhaps, depending on what is actually nominated; and difficult in large part because there are no simple easy rules, but that these sorts of issues require looking beyond very simple measurable things, including context.

    The thing about the Silmarillion question is that it’s a very unusual situation — probably unique but I might have forgotten something in Hugo history — requiring a one-off decision. The question of personal attacks in the Hugos will mostly likely not be a one-off, now that the door is opened.

    Which means that a set of rules will need to be hashed out, because leaving it up to the subjective judgment of whoever happens to be running Worldcon in any given year will most likely lead to endless awful fights around who gets to decide what the “context” is and whether they made the correct call in each case. “Context” is something that’s supposed to be taken into account by the Hugo voters when they choose what to nominate, not by the Hugo awards committee; the committee’s job has overwhelmingly been one of checking objective measures of qualifications for nominees — are they in the right category for their word length? Were they published elsewhere in a different year? Was the vote count correctly done? — and so on.

    A proposal to add an entirely subjective and extremely, ah, fraught element to that decision will, I predict, not pass muster as a rules change, given the huge potential for factionalist disaster it presents.

  20. Dave Wallace: Yes, I carelessly misread Harold Osler’s comment. Courtney Milan was not the source of the quote, @NeolithicSheep was. Who I understand to be a close friend of someone often quoted in the Scroll, and if memory serves, has also been quoted here a couple times. So I know how that’s going to go.

    And I agree Milan has endured a great deal of problematic misuse of the CoC in the RWA community, I’ve written quite a few posts here about that.

  21. @alexvdl

    When do we decide to do about the things she wrote about? When do we decide what is to be done about the 4 hours of bullshit that GRRM foisted upon us? Lots of people here have talked about how much it pissed them off, and how File770 was lining up to hand out beatings to him, and blah blah blah.

    But what concrete action was taken? What have we done to ensure that the people that were unwelcomed by that event are brought back? What have we done to ensure that names are pronounced correctly? What have we done to ensure that we don’t have to listen to 20 minutes of some old dude ramble about how things were back in his day? What have we done to ensure that the local fandom of an area gets some sorta spotlight when the Hugos as in their backyard?

    As was pointed out above, CoNZealand apologised for the issues with the Hugo ceremony. Furthermore, DisCon III’s toastmasters are Malka Older and Sheree Renée Thomas, while Chicon 8’s are Annalee Newitz and Charlie Jane Anders. It is also unlikely that GRRM will ever be allowed on stage at a Hugo ceremony again except as a winner.

    Furthermore – speaking as someone who was a Hugo finalist at both CoNZealand and DisCon III – both cons asked finalists to provide a phonetic spelling of their name and the title of their work, where applicable, before the finalists had even been announced. At CoNZealand, this information never reached GRRM and the other presenters. For DisCon III, Sheree Renée Thomas and Malka Older pronounced the names of the finalists correctly, as far as I can tell. At any rate, they pronounced my name and those of the other finalists in my category correctly. I actually Malka Older for that.

  22. Christian Brunschen: As I’ve said before: Context is important.

    How famous does a Worldcon member have to be before having their name being specified in a title worded as an abusive personal attack on the Hugo ballot is okay? Courtney Milan is a well-known writer and attorney who clerked for a Supreme Court judge. Is that famous enough? N.K. Jemisin is a multiple-Hugo winner and bestselling author with Hollywood projects in the works. Is that famous enough? Luhrs has been a Hugo Finalist twice now, and is well-known in Worldcon fandom. Is that famous enough?

    Where, exactly, should Worldcons draw that line? What specific, consistent measures should be used to determine when a Worldcon member is famous enough that having their name being specified in a title worded as an abusive personal attack on the Hugo ballot is okay?

    I absolutely don’t trust you or anyone else to have the kind of good judgment to make that decision, why would I agree to give you the power and ability to do that? I don’t even trust myself to have the kind of good judgment to make that decision. I sure as hell am not going to entrust any Worldcon committee to make ethical decisions based on a Worldcon member’s perceived level of fame. Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously?

    Either the principles that we as Worldcon members and committees say we are going to uphold apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide that some members are deserving of protection based on their perceived level of fame and others are not.

  23. Christian Brunschen: if the punching down did not have any consequences

    StefanB: And this probably why there isn’t the discusion

    There have been consequences. There has been, and still is ongoing, the discussion. It’s amazing to me that people would think this is not going on, simply because they themselves haven’t been involved in it.

    There has been a lot of discussion and planning among Worldconrunners about the changes which must be made to how the Hugo Awards Ceremony is run. And I can pretty much guarantee you that GRRM will never be given the opportunity to present at a Hugo Award Ceremony again. There is no Worldcon which will be willing to give him a role – because they are not going to want to deal with the immense backlash that occurs the moment it’s known that someone has made a decision to do so (and no one would be able to keep such a decision secret, there will be whistleblowers). Given how much GRRM loves the Hugos and Worldcon, I’m sure that’s sad for him – but hey: You Abuse It, You Lose It.

    If you don’t feel that enough discussion and consequences are going on, then do something about it. Personally. You, yourself. Write to Worldcons and Worldcon bids and tell them exactly what your expectations are for their future performance as conventions. Make it clear that you will be paying attention to what they say and do, holding them accountable, and hauling them up very loudly in public if it becomes apparent that they are not meeting your expectations. Join a Worldcon committee and volunteer to assist with an area that you feel needs the most improvement. There are a lot of people who are already doing these things; just because you haven’t done them, you’ve assumed that they aren’t happening.

    If you genuinely care, then do not expect somebody else to do this work for you. Do not expect someone to issue an edict that will magically make this happen. Do not expect someone to submit a proposal to the WSFS Business Meeting that will magically fix things – because there is no magic way to legislate performance by human volunteers.

  24. Kevin Standlee: The main reason 3-Stage-Voting never left the launching pad is the lack of support for voting things off the ballot. However, the people who were open to that idea were discouraged by the complexity of the proposal, and how evident it was from your explanation that it would be very difficult to reach the bar for voting something off.

  25. Didn’t 3SV actually pass that year? I thought it only failed in the second year’s vote.

  26. No, in the end 3SV never came before the Business Meeting. But I think it was an interesting proposal.

  27. @Bartimaeus: That’s correct, it did get initial approval on the last day of the 2016 business meeting.

  28. Batimaeus: 3SV was passed in 2016 and failed in 2017, as you note. The minutes for the 2017 business meeting are here if anyone wants to read the tea leaves for themselves.

  29. IIRC the decision was to pass everything so that they’d all be available for ratification the next year after further discussion in the interim.

  30. Several here have suggested as a solution that DisCon III should use an alternate title on the official list of finalists. I have two questions about this:

    A) Would this be a violation of any existing rule? I have tried to look in the WSFS constitution, and I can’t find anything that’s clearly relevant. I found language saying that the final ballot “shall list” the nominees, but nothing on the exact format of this list. As far as I can tell it’s within the constitution to use an alternate title, as long as the reference is unambiguous.

    B) And more specifically to the people who say Luhrs’ title is not a bad personal attack on Martin: Do you thing using a different title could be an acceptable solution in a different situation, given a finalist with a more offensive title?

  31. JJ on April 20, 2021 at 7:41 pm said:

    Christian Brunschen: As I’ve said before: Context is important.

    How famous does a Worldcon member have to be before having their name being specified in a title worded as an abusive personal attack on the Hugo ballot is okay?

    When I’ve spoken about context, I’ve always tried to make it clear that I’ve been talking about actions – in this case, about what GRRM did, and in particular that he was in a position of authority and abused that position of authority. So please, once again, stop putting words into my mouth.

    I absolutely don’t trust you or anyone else to have the kind of good judgment to make that decision

    Then why are you demanding that I describe where the line should be drawn, if you don’t trust my judgement? And why should I trust your judgement in putting a line somewhere, to be followed forever after?

    , why would I agree to give you the power and ability to do that? I don’t even trust myself to have the kind of good judgment to make that decision. I sure as hell am not going to entrust any Worldcon committee to make ethical decisions based on a Worldcon member’s perceived level of fame. Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously?

    I am not fucking kidding you because I seriously didn’t say that.

    Again, the context I’ve talked about is the actions that were taken, and the position from which they were taken – not ‘how famous’ someone is. In this particular case, mainly the fact that GRRM spoke from the position of authority of being the host of the Hugo awards, that the nominated essay was a direct response to that, and so on..

    Either the principles that we as Worldcon members and committees say we are going to uphold apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide that some members are deserving of protection based on their perceived level of fame and others are not.

    The principles absolutely apply to everyone. But that does not mean that rules have to be simple lines drawn in the sand!

    What I’ve consistently said is that simplistic rules like “this phrase is OK, that phrase isn’t” are too simplistic because reality is more complex, and that the context – including in particular the sequence of events leading up to a particular phrase being used, or a particular action being taken – is important, beyond just the instant action itself.

    That does not, however, mean that any decision is or should be “arbitrary” or that “anything goes”.

    Rules can be written that offer guidance, examples, etc, while still allowing for flexibility. They could even include examples of “this phrase is normally not OK, but here are circumstances that would create an exception” and its opposite.

    Such rules do not, however, allow for a simple answer to questions like “where exactly is this line drawn” – because those rules acknowledge that things are more complex than a simple line.

    And yes, at some point, a decision has to be made, by someone. But that decision then can look at the actual context and circumstances; whereas if the rules are simplistic and rigid, then applying them may be easier but is also limited only to those specific things that were “arbitrarily” chosen by the people who wrote the rigid and simplistic rules in the first place.

    Laws acknowledge that context matters. Why should Worldcon’s rules be more rigid-and-simplistlc than actual laws?

    ––––

    As an aside, which is relevant only because you brought up the “how famous is this person” thing: In libel or defamation cases – for example the JdA one that is ongoing and has been discussed here – in the USA at least, the standard for what is considered defamation or libel includes, among other things, whether of not the plaintiff is a public figure – which includes being a “limited purpose public figure” in the specific community where things were happening – in other words, how famous the person in question is.

    Those laws are then interpreted and applied by a judge – an actual human person – who listens to and weighs evidence presented by both sides, and then makes a determination.

    And those laws are absolutely intended to protect everyone – while acknowledging that sometimes “equality” (drawing a simple line in the sand and applying that exactly the same way to everyone) and “equity” (aiming to achieve just outcomes for everyone) differ.

    A monetary fine in a set amount for example, while it may be applied equally to everyone, is not always an equitable punishment, for example: it allows rich people to just shrug and pay the fine, while less-rich people may suffer a more significant hardship as a result, and may have to forego something important.

    Some countries, like Sweden, have the concept of (in Swedish) “dagsböter” – “day fines” – where the fines are relative to the person’s daily income and overall financial situation, such that a wealthier person pays a larger absolute amount for the same judgement, and a less-wealthy person pays a lesser amount – since the intent of the fine is to “make it hurt” similarly for both more and less wealthy people.

  32. Christian Brunschen: Then why are you demanding that I describe where the line should be drawn, if you don’t trust my judgement?

    Because I was trying to get you to recognize that it’s impossible to draw such a line. It seems that hope on my part for such awareness on your part was in vain.

     
    Your discussion of laws and legal precedents is a nice digression, but it’s not relevant here.

    The reason Codes of Conduct exist is because fandom and Worldcons have acknowledged that there is a huge gap between what the law regulates and what expectations we as Worldcon runners and members have for acceptable behavior. Discussions of law are a red herring and irrelevant in this case.

    Discussions of Worldcon’s ethical obligations to its members are what is relevant.

     
    Christian Brunschen: When I’ve spoken about context, I’ve always tried to make it clear that I’ve been talking about actions – in this case, about what GRRM did, and in particular that he was in a position of authority and abused that position of authority.

    What GRRM did at the Hugo Ceremony in 2020 was really shitty, but is not relevant to this issue, even though you keep trying to make it so. These are two separate things. GRRM doing something wrong last year does not make it okay for DisCon III and the Hugo Awards to do something wrong this year.

    Here’s what you’re saying:
    Because a Worldcon member fucked up the 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony, it is okay for DisCon III and the Hugo Awards to publish and broadcast repeatedly a title which is an abusive personal attack specifically naming that Worldcon member.

    Suppose that this year, someone writes an essay entitled “Natalie Luhr is a ******* *******” (where the asterisks represent words which are an abusive personal attack), and next year it gets enough nominations to appear on the Hugo ballot. Is it okay for Worldcon and the Hugo Awards to spend months publishing and broadcasting that title? Why or why not?

  33. JJ on April 21, 2021 at 12:56 am said:

    Christian Brunschen: Then why are you demanding that I describe where the line should be drawn, if you don’t trust my judgement?

    Because I was trying to get you to recognize that it’s impossible to draw such a line. It seems that hope on my part for such awareness on your part was in vain.

    I have been quite clear that I don’t think a simple line can be drawn, and that any such determination needs to look at more than just that. I have literally pointed out that drawing a simple line is not going to work.

    You on the other hand seem to want to draw a simple line, just at a specific place – one where anything that might be offensive is disallowed. That is still drawing a simple line – which, above, you say can’t be done.

    Which is it? Do you want to draw that simple line, or not? Can it be done, or not?

    Your discussion of laws and legal precedents is a nice digression, but it’s not relevant here.

    I think it’s perfectly relevant to show how similar questions are dealt with in other contexts – as examples of approaches that can be used, if nothing else.

    In particular when, like in the legal case against Worldcon 76, is it specifically about what it is or is not OK for a Worldcon to say about a Worldcon member, in a situation that arose out of that Worldcon’s Code of Conduct, where that Worldcon’s statements were a reaction to things that that Worldcon member had said outside of that Worldcon.

    How could a legal case, where the situation touches on a lot of the same things (Worldcon makes a statement, about a Worldcon member, Code of Conduct is involved, is it OK or not OK for Worldcon to say this) not be in the slightest way relevant? Sure, there are differences, and those too are important, but the case is absolutely relevant to the discussion – as are the principles and laws involved in that case.

    And it turns out that … context matters. Hugely.

    So inferring from that case, it’s hardly a stretch to consider that context might matter more as a general principle – including in the analogous situation in the case of the essay in response to GRRM’s misbehaviour.

    The reason Codes of Conduct exist is because fandom and Worldcons have acknowledged that there is a huge gap between what the law regulates and what expectations we as Worldcon runners and members have for acceptable behavior. Discussions of law are a red herring and irrelevant in this case.

    The fact that laws may be deemed insufficient and that Worldcons want to have more protections that just the bare minimum provided by the law does not mean that the law becomes irrelevant – especially when looking at patterns for how things can be dealt with.

    Discussions of Worldcon’s ethical obligations to its members are what is relevant.

    Those are absolutely relevant – but so are the laws. More than one thing an be relevant at the same time! That whole “context” thing again: codes of conduct don’t exist in a vacuum; they exist within a framework of laws. A code of conduct that were to try to go strongly against established legal principles might well be challenged on that basis, for example.

    Christian Brunschen: When I’ve spoken about context, I’ve always tried to make it clear that I’ve been talking about actions – in this case, about what GRRM did, and in particular that he was in a position of authority and abused that position of authority.

    What GRRM did at the Hugo Ceremony in 2020 was really shitty, but is not relevant to this issue, even though you keep trying to make it so. These are two separate things.

    They are not so completely separate as you’re trying to portray them – the essay at issue, its title, etc, are a direct reaction to GRRM’s hosting of the Hugos. The essay specifically talks about GRRMs behaviour in that presentation. You cannot possibly pretend that they are unrelated!

    I think this is where we firmly differ: To me, you cannot and must not separate these two, much like in the example where a woman slaps a man after he groped her, you cannot and must not separate the groping from the slap; or indeed, you cannot separate a certain author’s worlds before Worldcon from Worldcon’s statement about that author and why his membership was downgraded.

    You keep trying to tell me that nothing other than the specific title is relevant; but in that case, why would the outcome of this particular kerfuffle be relevant to any future decisions? That could only matter if actions by one Worldcon influence what another Worldcan can or can’t do – if this creates some kind of precedent. But a precedent is simply another kind of context for future decisions. Precedent can be followed, or it can be rejected, especially if there is good reason to do so.

    So does context matter, or not? Of course it does. And yes, that means that whatever is decided in this case will influence what future Worldcons do or don’t do, because one Worldcon’s actions create a context in which future Worldcons act – just like GRRM’s actions at CoNZealand created this context in which DisCon III acts.

    GRRM doing something wrong last year does not make it okay for DisCon III and the Hugo Awards to do something wrong this year.

    That presumes that what is being done here is, in fact, “something wrong”. I have explained my reasoning for why I don’t think that what is happening in this case is wrong – it may not be the best or greatest thing ever, and I would have chosen something different as I’ve explained elsethread, but I don’t consider it wrong.

    Here’s what you’re saying:

    Well, your interpretation of it, which we’ve already seen is not always reliable. i’ll clarify.

    Because a Worldcon member fucked up the 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony, it is okay for DisCon III and the Hugo Awards to publish and broadcast repeatedly a title which is an abusive personal attack specifically naming that Worldcon member.

    What I’m actually saying is:

    Because a person behaved badly (and in particular where in a position of authority abused that position of authority), it is reasonable for DisCon III to broadcast a reasonable call-out of that person for that bad behaviour.

    While it is “personal”, well, calling someone out for something they did is pretty much per definition going to be directed at that person. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t consider the title to be an “attack”, precisely because it it a response to GRRM’s actions. As to “offensive”, again we disagree: I see it as strong language, but as hyperbole – especially because the essay itself talks about the relevant behaviour (there’s some of that relevant context, again).

    Suppose that this year, someone writes an essay entitled “Natalie Luhr is a ******* *******” (where the asterisks represent words which are an abusive personal attack), and next year it gets enough nominations to appear on the Hugo ballot. Is it okay for Worldcon and the Hugo Awards to spend months publishing and broadcasting that title? Why or why not?

    ITYM “Natalie Luhrs“.

    It’s just as easy to construct hypotheticals the other way (and I’m not asking you or anyone to answer, just presenting an example of a similarly plausible hypothetical that can be constructed, but that illustrates the opposite):

    “What if someone writes a blog post whose title is ‘ten reasons why is my very best friend’, but where the contents of that blog post are full of smears and attacks and lies and completely made-of stuff – and that ends up on the ballot. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the contents of the blog post are nothing but a vile shitpost with the goal of humiliating and degrading ; but the title itself, without any context, is completely innocuous – positive and friendly, even. Is that OK to broadcast on the ballot for months on end, or not? why, or why not?”

    That hypothetical example illustrates that even if the line is placed at “a title on the ballot must not have any hint of a personal attack”, that simple rule fails in the hypothetical case – because everyone who has read the blog post will know what is actually hiding behind that friendly-looking title, and would likely feel at least as hurt and unwelcome as if the title had more accurately represented the contents of the blog post.

    Reality is almost always more complex than just a simple line in the sand.

    Context matters.

  34. JJ: Discussions of Worldcon’s ethical obligations to its members are what is relevant.

    Christian Brunschen: Those are absolutely relevant – but so are the laws.

    There are no laws involved here. If there were, the right choice would be a lot easier. This is why the Worldcon 76 court case is not relevant – because they made a Code of Conduct decision that was legally challenged in court. That’s not what this is.

    In fact, a couple of people with a lot of expertise on Codes of Conduct and enforcement and administration of them have weighed in several times in this thread with explanations as to why this is not a Code of Conduct issue. It’s also not an issue about Natalie Luhrs, and it’s not an issue about the content of her essay.

    It’s a Worldcon committee ethical issue.

    Christian Brunschen: Because a person behaved badly (and in particular where in a position of authority abused that position of authority), it is reasonable for DisCon III to broadcast a reasonable call-out of that person for that bad behaviour.

    That’s not what this is. This isn’t DisCon III calling out GRRM for what he did last year. DisCon III calling out GRRM would look like this: They’d write an announcement, it would say what behavior they’re calling out and what remedies they expect, it would be signed by the DisCon III Chairs or the whole committee, and it would be posted on their website and Facebook page and e-mailed to members as a newsletter. And if they decided to do that, it would be the legitimate callout for bad behavior you’re claiming. But this is not that.

    Look, there’s a whole lot of us who’d like to give GRRM a great big fuck-you for what he did to the Hugo Ceremony last year (and a lot of us have, in various forms).

    But DisCon III spending months publishing and broadcasting a title which is an abusive personal attack with his name in it on the Hugo ballot is not justice. Catharsis, sure. Revenge, sure. But it’s not justice.

    Justice is hard. But if we as Worldcon members and committees say that we’re committed to justice and the principles and expectations of behavior that we put in our Codes of Conduct, we have to be committed to being just, even when it’s hard, even when we’d rather not.

    Look, I know you want to convince yourself that there are legitimate reasons to have DisCon III publishing this title, because it gives you that satisfying feeling of revenge.

    But it’s not justice. And it’s not right.

  35. @Cora Buhlert

    My life experiences have been that when something goes wrong and actions are taken to fix the issue, that without the proper support and codification, those corrective actions are taken strongly for a bit, and then things slack off to the point that we’re back where we started. And then the cycle repeats.

    I am glad that DisCon and ChiCon appear to have learned from ConZealand’s mistake. I also don’t think that DisCon and ChiCon making those choices and not making it clear why those choices were made is going to help to change the institutition of Fandom that lead to those bad choices.

    We’re sorta back to the missing stair thing. People who know, know why things have been done, and everyone else has make assumptions.

    JJ: Look, I know you want to convince yourself that there are legitimate reasons to have DisCon III publishing this title, because it gives you that satisfying feeling of revenge.

    A legitimate reason like…. it’s the title of the work that was nominated to the ballot by the voters?

    What’s up with you repeatedly ascribing sinister motives to people?

  36. JJ on April 21, 2021 at 3:57 am said:

    JJ: Discussions of Worldcon’s ethical obligations to its members are what is relevant.

    Christian Brunschen: Those are absolutely relevant – but so are the laws.

    There are no laws involved here.

    Just because they’re not directly involved here doesn’t mean they’re not relevant.

    If there were, the right choice would be a lot easier. This is why the Worldcon 76 court case is not relevant – because they made a Code of Conduct decision that was legally challenged in court. That’s not what this is.

    To me the case remains relevant as, at the very least, something to compare against, because it shows one example of a set of rules about what is or isn’t OK to say about someone, including for example that it’s not just the specific wording that matters – but also some other things … you know, “context” … and how that can be applied, in a very real sense.

    In fact, a couple of people with a lot of expertise on Codes of Conduct and enforcement and administration of them have weighed in several times in this thread with explanations as to why this is not a Code of Conduct issue. It’s also not an issue about Natalie Luhrs, and it’s not an issue about the content of her essay.

    It’s a Worldcon committee ethical issue.

    It’s an issue that involves a lot of things. The issue definitely involves GRRM and his behaviour, Natalie Luhrs and the essay including both its title and contents, the nominators, the DisCon III committee … all these things are involved. Just calling it an “ethics issue” doesn’t make those involved things go away, nor does it make other related things “irrelevant”.

    Christian Brunschen: Because a person behaved badly (and in particular where in a position of authority abused that position of authority), it is reasonable for DisCon III to broadcast a reasonable call-out of that person for that bad behaviour.

    That’s not what this is. This isn’t DisCon III calling out GRRM for what he did last year.

    I didn’t say it was – again, please don’t put words into my mouth. What I wrote (which you quoted literally just above) was that “it is reasonable for DisCon III to broadcast a reasonable call-out of that person for that bad behaviour”. Broadcast a call-out. The call-out, in this case, by including the call-out on the ballot.

    This does not mean that DisCon II has called GRRM out. Natalie Luhrs did the calling-out, and it’s that call-out that DisCon III is broadcasting.

    And I wrote that specifically as a clarification in response to what you had written, which was:

    Here’s what you’re saying:
    Because a Worldcon member fucked up the 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony, it is okay for DisCon III and the Hugo Awards to publish and broadcast repeatedly a title which is an abusive personal attack specifically naming that Worldcon member.

    You wrote ‘Because […] it is okay for DisCon III [ … ] to broadcast [ …]’ and I responded by clarifying ‘Because [… ] it is reasonable for DisCon III to broadcast [ …]’ – following the same structure of what you had written, but differing in some specifics. What you had written that you claimed I was saying was not about DisCon III calling out GRRM, and neither was what I wrote in clarification about what I actually meant, which I thought would have been apparent not only form the fact that I didn’t write what you claimed I wrote, but also because I was following the structure of what you yourself had written and which was not about DisCon III calling out GRRM.

    DisCon III calling out GRRM would look like this: [ … ] And if they decided to do that, it would be the legitimate callout for bad behavior you’re claiming. But this is not that.

    Are you suggesting that there exist exactly one and only one way for DisCon III to call out GRRM for his bad behaviour, and anything else is not “legitimate”?

    Look, there’s a whole lot of us who’d like to give GRRM a great big fuck-you for what he did to the Hugo Ceremony last year (and a lot of us have, in various forms).

    But DisCon III spending months publishing and broadcasting a title which is an abusive personal attack with his name in it on the Hugo ballot is not justice. Catharsis, sure. Revenge, sure. But it’s not justice.

    I don’t see it as either catharsis or revenge – simply as a perhaps-not-awesome result of a sequence of reasonable choices. Choices that I myself would not have made, but which I cannot condemn as “wrong”.

    Justice is hard. But if we as Worldcon members and committees say that we’re committed to justice and the principles and expectations of behavior that we put in our Codes of Conduct, we have to be committed to being just, even when it’s hard, even when we’d rather not.

    I thought you said just above this isn’t a Code of Conduct issue?

    Look, I know you want to convince yourself that there are legitimate reasons to have DisCon III publishing this title, because it gives you that satisfying feeling of revenge.

    JJ, you keep misrepresenting what I’ve written, putting words into my mouth, and now you claim to know what I’m thinking and feeling. You have been wrong about so many things you’ve claimed I’ve written, and you’re even more wrong about what I’m thinking and feeling and about my motivations.

    To reiterate and clarify further:

    GRRM behaved badly – i.e., his actions were, in my opinion, bad and thus by necessity unreasonable.

    He received what I consider to be perfectly reasonable pushback and responses, including the essay at issue here. I think this push-back is even an actively good thing, because it highlighted his bad behaviour and elevated the voices of those he disrespected.

    I also consider it to be perfectly reasonable that one of those writings has been nominated for a Hugo, and even that it has ended up on the ballot, since that is what happens if enough people nominate a work. I myself would not have nominated this essay (but I’m not a member of this Worldcon, so that is a moot point) – I do not consider this to be either “good” or “bad” – simply “reasonable”.

    DisCon III has to communicate this somehow to the Hugo voters. I believe it is reasonable of DisCon III to identify the essay by its title. I myself would not have chosen to do so, if I had the option to do otherwise; I would have also sought to avoid if at all possible using only a part of its title; a phrase like “An essay by Natalie Luhrs on 1st August 2020 in response to GRRM’s hosting of the Hugo awards ceremony” would work – with a comment, if anyone asked, that “the title contains language that is controversial on its face, so we’re identifying the work in a different way” – would have been my preference. But: I still consider DisCon III’s choice to be neither specifically good nor bad – but instead a valid and reasonable one.

    So no, I am not trying to “convince myself” about anything; I have what I consider to be a solid base of facts and reasoning for my position – that, even if the current situation is not awesome or perfect, it is reasonable.

    I am not getting any “satisfying feelings” of “revenge”. On the contrary, the entire situation is quite unsatisfying; but that doesn’t mean it’s not a reasonable position to have ended up in, given the starting point of GRRM’s un reasonable actions..

    In fact in that sequence of events, there is only one thing that was not at least reasonable, and that was GRRM’s behaviour at the CoNZealand Hugo awards ceremony; so the responsibility for anything unsatisfying about the situation right now belongs … with GRRM.

    I’m also not looking for “revenge”. While I think it would be good if there were some actual formal consequences for GRRM’s misbehaviour (beyond the fairly toothless apology from CoNZealand), my point in that regard has been that trying to impose some sort of formal consequences on those who are complaining about GRRM’s bad behaviour in the absence of formal consequences for GRRM would give an appearance that it’s perfectly OK to behave badly as GRRM did, but not OK to complain about it, or complain “in the wrong way”. In other words, I’m advocating against the appearance of “revenge” against those who dared to raise their voices against fandom darling GRRM.

    But it’s not justice. And it’s not right.

    Justice and Ethics are both hard. Ethics also isn’t a single thing that everyone agrees on: there are different theories and different frameworks, and depending on which you follow you may end up, from the same starting point, at different conclusions – even among people following the same theory or framework. Justice similarly.

    But in order to arrive at any conclusion, both of those require looking at facts – including what I refer to as “context”.

  37. Christian Brunschen: This does not mean that DisCon II has called GRRM out. Natalie Luhrs did the calling-out, and it’s that call-out that DisCon III is broadcasting.

    What DisCon III is doing is broadcasting is a title which is a personal attack against a Worldcon member.

    Once something is on the ballot, it’s the job of the Worldcon and Hugo Awards Committee to determine how to handle issues created by finalist works.

    In the past, special handling has included works which contained porn, detailed descriptions of child sexual abuse, and libelous accusations. These were handled by not including the content in the packet.

    This is the first time a Worldcon has had to handle a title which is an abusive personal attack on a Worldcon member. When DisCon III continually publishes and broadcasts this title, they are doing so in direct contravention of the principles stated in their Code of Conduct.

    Worldcon has no obligation to publish this abusive title. It is well within their remit to refer to the work by an alternate title.

    Either DisCon III demonstrates that these CoC principles actually have meaning to which they will adhere, or they demonstrate that they are willing to violate their own stated principles by continuing to publish and broadcast this title.

  38. JJ on April 21, 2021 at 7:03 am said:

    Christian Brunschen: This does not mean that DisCon II has called GRRM out. Natalie Luhrs did the calling-out, and it’s that call-out that DisCon III is broadcasting.

    What DisCon III is broadcasting is a title which is a personal attack against a Worldcon member.

    … a title which some people argue is a personal attack, but other people argue is not, and which is a direct response to the actions of the person called out in the title.

    Worldcon has no obligation to publish this

    allegedly

    abusive title. It is well within their remit to refer to the work by an alternate title.

    … which, as you may recall, I have repeatedly said I would have chosen to do if it were possible and if I were in a position to make such a decision – but I’m not, and it may not be possible.

    Either DisCon III demonstrates that these CoC principles actually have meaning to which they will adhere, or they demonstrate that they are willing to violate their own stated principles by continuing to publish and broadcast this title.

    … or they disagree that the title constitutes an “attack”, or they consider that there are other principles at play that change the balance of the decision, or …

    There are other options that just the nefarious one. This is not a simplistic “either all good, or all bad” situation as you appear to make it out to be.

  39. Christian Brunschen: allegedly

    Oh, there’s no question that the title is an abusive personal attack which names a specific Worldcon member.

    The only question is whether it’s okay for DisCon III to publish it anyway.

    You may not feel that Worldcons need to adhere to the ethical standards they publish in their Codes of Conduct.

    I believe they have an obligation to do so. Otherwise, anyone can say anything they want at DisCon III, and if a complaint is filed about it, they can just point at DisCon III’s own infraction and say that it’s obvious that it’s only a guideline and not something enforceable.

  40. Oh, there’s no question that the title is an abusive personal attack which names a specific Worldcon member.

    There is, in fact, question.

    You think that it’s an abusive personal attack.

    Not everyone does.

  41. @JJ: Ultimately any disagreement as to whether the title is an abusive attack or a rude defence against an attack is important because it affects individual perceptions of the matter, but it is not really relevant to the main problem, which is that every single solution proposed to this issue, including yours, has the potential to be leveraged to cause harm to others. The differences in the arguments are based on differing perceptions of what kind of harm does the most damage and how best to mitigate against it. I have not seen much evidence in these discussions that people here are looking for revenge, though lots of people are angry; those are different things. I think that generally everyone—including you—is arguing in good faith, with reasoning that is contextually sound based on their interpretation of where the greatest harm lies, and looking for a way to solve the problem that offers the greatest level of protection. But it’s complicated, and there is no simple perfect solution.

  42. JJ on April 21, 2021 at 7:19 am said:

    Christian Brunschen: allegedly

    Oh, there’s no question that the title is an abusive personal attack which names a specific Worldcon member.

    … except I have repeatedly described why I do not consider the title to be “an abusive personal attack” in the context where it was written, nominated, and indeed where it is on the ballot. So, regardless which one of us is “correct”, your claim that there “no question” is inaccurate. I am questioning it.

    The only question is whether it’s okay for DisCon III to publish it anyway.

    Except again, I do not consider it to be an abusive personal attack, so therefore there is no “anyway” and from my perspective DisCon III is indeed OK to publish it (though I would personally choose otherwise). This seems obvious to me and “should” be ‘without question’, but I acknowledge that the question exists and is reasonable, so I do not make the claim that my view is somehow the only one that exists or even is the only valid one.

    You may not feel that Worldcons need to adhere to the ethical standards they publish in their Codes of Conduct.

    I believe they have an obligation to do so.

    Of course DisCon III needs to follow its own code of conduct, but as you yourself noted elsethread,

    In fact, a couple of people with a lot of expertise on Codes of Conduct and enforcement and administration of them have weighed in several times in this thread with explanations as to why this is not a Code of Conduct issue.

     – and if this is not a code of conduct issue, then the code of conduct simply does not apply, right?

    So then the argument might become that the ethical standard needs to cover everything that DisCon III does. But in that case, DisCon III need to apply that standard and come to a decision that they believe fits within that standard.

    I believe that they have done so, as best they can, weighing different competing requirements and needs and opportunities, positives and negatives, advantages and disadvantages. They have arrived at a different conclusion than I would have, but I believe that they have tried to do the best they can within all the applicable frameworks of ethics, rules, guidelines, etc.

    Otherwise, anyone can say anything they want at DisCon III, and if a complaint is filed about it, they can just point at DisCon III’s own infraction and say that it’s obvious that it’s only a guideline and not something enforceable.

    Except, again, to me there is no infraction on the part of DisCon III, nor does the Code of Conduct even apply as you yourself pointed out; so the problem you allege does not seem to exist as you allege it.

    Even if something is “guidelines” rather than “hard and fast rules” that does not mean nothing can be enforced.

    Even laws (which are a harder, more formally-written-down, and usually also much more detailed set of rules than a code of conduct – after all, the code of conduct is intended to supplement laws where they are not sufficiently flexible or otherwise insufficient) are not always enforced exactly the same way every time. When it comes to both culpability and to sentencing, the circumstances of the offence and of the offender come into play. There exist defences against crimes that make something permissible even if it would ordinarily be an absolute no-no (self-defense for example, and more widely, ‘necessity‘ springs to mind). Clearly, those laws are still enforceable, even though there are possibilities for exceptions, for leniency, etc.

    So all those things that you describe as being so simple and clear-cut … aren’t.

  43. I’ve read most of this thread quite carefully, and I’m still having a hard time understanding how “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun” can be considered anything but an abusive personal attack.

    Would anyone who thinks it is not likely to cause offence be happy to wander into a bar, stroll up to one of the tougher looking patrons and tell them to fuck off into the sun?

  44. Cliff: Would anyone who thinks it is not likely to cause offence be happy to wander into a bar, stroll up to one of the tougher looking patrons and tell them to fuck off into the sun?

    Before or after listening to them wax poetic about a fascist, the rubbery chicken at a hotel, and a statue’s genitals?

  45. I’ve read most of this thread quite carefully, and I’m still having a hard time understanding how “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun” can be considered anything but an abusive personal attack.

    Same. Who here would not think it was abusive if they were told to “fuck off into the sun” by somebody at the microphone of a con?

Comments are closed.