(1) ALL IN. It’s a rule of thumb that most small businesses fail within five years. Do professional writers face the same odds? Kameron Hurley discusses the long haul, in “The Mission-Driven Writing Career” at Locus Online.
What drives you, then, when you have reached the goal of selling work, and perhaps making a little money doing it? What drives you when you have finally achieved the financial freedom afforded by your writing career?
(2) TOO YOUNG FOR BRADBURY? In the latest installment of Young People Read Old SF, James Davis Nicoll presented his charges with a Ray Bradbury story.
I considered choosing “The Veldt,” on the grounds it seemed to be the Bradbury most often adapted to radio—but I rejected that because it was not one of the few Bradbury stories that managed to burrow themselves into my brain: “The Foghorn,” “There Will Come Soft Rains,” “Frost and Fire,” and the story I actually chose, Bradbury’s tribute to children everywhere, “All Summer in Day.” But as has been established before in this series of reviews, just because a story resonated with me half a century ago does not mean younger readers will find it interesting. Or will they?
(3) MUDDLING. Carl Slaughter points out that No Zombies, Please, We Are British, Vol. 1 by Alex Laybourne came out in August.
The dead may rise, but the British spirit will always live on. Trapped in his apartment building, Jack knows that riding out the zombie apocalypse inside is not an option. Especially when his girlfriend is trapped in the city. Jack knows it is a fool’s errand, but he has to try. In a terrifying journey across London, Jack finds that the entire city has fallen. The dead are waiting around every corner, but even in the first days of the apocalypse, it is not only the dead that pose a threat. Deception, lies and heartache are a part of life, and Jack will soon realize that it is the people that stand beside you that matter most. Thrust into the position of leader, the rescue mission becomes a symbol of something much larger.
(4) LEVIN OBIT. Well-known antiquarian SF/fantasy bookseller Barry R. Levin, 70, owner of Barry R. Levin Books in Santa Monica, CA reportedly took his own life on September 14. According to Andrew Porter, “I was able to confirm this with the help of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America (ABAA) office in New York, and his nephew Joe Levin, who is his executor.”
Levin was born June 11, 1946 in Philadelphia, and after a brief career in the aerospace industry, opened his store in 1973. He wed Sally Ann Fudge in 1983; she predeceased him in 2006. There were no children; he is, however, survived by several relatives including an older brother, a niece and two nephews.
(5) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY GIRL
- October 8, 1949 — Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Ghostbusters) is born in Manhattan.
(6) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOYS
- Born October 8, 1920 — Frank Herbert
- Born October 8, 1943 — R.L. Stine
(7) NETFLIX’S A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS. New Statesman’s Anna Leszkiewicz asks, “What do we Learn about Netflix’s A Series of Unfortunate Events from its new trailer?”
“The story of the Baudelaire orphans is so upsetting and so utterly unnerving, the entire crew is suffering from low morale, a phrase which here means, currently under medical observation for melancholia, ennui, and acute wistfulness.
“So please, don’t make the same mistake that Netflix has, and look away before this dire tale is even filmed, and avoid the cruel whimsy and whimsical cruelty of what’s to come.”
This seems like an unconventional way to introduce a new Netflix original series, but for fans of the A Series of Unfortunate Events books, it will make perfect, nostalgic sense.
(8) WORLDCON 75 EXPLAINS. The Helsinki Worldcon chairs wrote a post on Facebook to justify their decision to drop Dave Weingart from the committee, and have become embroiled in a comment exchange with his defenders, and other critics of the process. Their statement begins:
David Weingart was recently dismissed from Worldcon 75 Staff for failing to abide by an agreement he had made to not interact with another staff member who reported feeling stalked by him in the past. The agreement had allowed both valued staff members to work on Worldcon 75 for several months. Once broken, David refused to recommit to a course of action intended to prevent problematic interactions from happening again, and refused to accept responsibility for his actions or impact. The situation, unfortunately, was at an impasse.
The decision to dismiss David was not easy to make, but it was the decision that the co-chairs and Staff Services came to, after much discussion. Both staffers have every right to feel upset and hurt about this situation. Worldcon 75 is something both cared about and worked hard for. That does not excuse David’s behaviour or his actions, nor does it negate his impact; we stand by our decision to dismiss him. We wish David only the best in his future volunteering….
(9) FILKERDAVE ANSWERS. Dave Weingart published further responses in “Worldcon follow-up: e-mail chain”.
I was really hoping not to have to do this. I’m not fond of publishing emails, which I’d normally hold in confidence I’m afraid that I don’t see much of a choice. The official Worldcon responses are…disheartening and I will flat-out accuse them of lying. There is, for example, one that says that I gave them an ultimatum. This is an unusual use of the term ultimatum, one which I hadn’t previously known, unless it’s an ultimatum by my responding to “quit or be fired” with “go ahead and fire me, then.” Or one that says “we gave him multiple opportunities to work within the rules set by the convention, which would have enabled him to do his job. He was only dismissed when he refused to follow them.” One is, I suppose, a multiple in some form of mathematics. I was given an unacceptable condition that I refused to accept and was fired 2 weeks later with no further communication between.
These are the three emails I received from Worldcon 75, along with my replies….
(10) THE FILK SIDE. Filker Gary McGath’s reaction is “Let’s not surrender fandom to bullies”.
The illiberal factions in fandom just want power. They don’t care much whom they go after, as long as they can flex their muscles. The Worldcon 75 committee has offered the latest sample of this, shoving Dave Weingart out as the filk head.
Dave discussed what happened here. In brief: Someone got the notion that Dave should never talk to her. He respected this. One day he inadvertently posted a Babylon 5 video link to a chat group which this other person was also in. For this, he was told he could continue to run filk only if he agreed to end all staff contact outside his division. Of course, it’s impossible to run a part of the program that way, so his only choice was to withdraw.
The concom’s action makes no sense of any kind. It grows out of the notion that “feeling offended” trumps every other consideration and entitles someone to claim any remedy. Well, listen, Helsinki gang. I’m offended. I hope every filker who was planning to go cancels out on you.
(11) POWER EQUATION. Alexandra Erin has posted “Public Statements: David Weingart and Worldcon 75” at Blue Author Prepares To Write.
I don’t know the other person’s side of things. I don’t want or need to know the other person’s side of things. But it seems like David Weingart knew his position was untenable, and he chose to continue hold onto it until someone else forced the issue.
I suspect the reason for this has something to do with the calculus of priority that we tend to make, in fannish and convention circles, which is: what I or this person has to offer in terms of experience, passion, and expertise is worth more than the comfort and safety of a few people. That’s how you look at a situation where you agree that a person has a right to be free of you and you realize that the position you accepted makes that impossible and you conclude that the solution is for everyone to just sort of power through anyway. You’ve made the decision that what you do for the con is more important than what you do to this individual.
I think no one would dispute to Mr. Weingart’s contributions to cons actually have been tremendously valuable. But as fannish circles and conventions embrace community standards and commitments to safety and work to be more welcoming to people from every walk of life, we really have to internalize the lesson that nobody is irreplaceable.
(12) SPECTACULAR COSPLAY. Business Insider’s headline is easy to believe: “This brilliant Mystique costume stunned everyone at New York Comic Con”.
[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, and Cat Eldridge for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Bruce Baugh.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
:ticky:::
(12) That Mystique cosplay started ricocheting around my FB feed yesterday. And every time I saw it I had to stop and stare.
That’s an amazing Mystique cosplay.
Third fifth (are we still doing that?)
I’ve really said my piece about Weingarten but I hope that the actual victim in all of this is safe and protected, and that the torrent of abuse against her dies soon.
RIP, Mr. Levin. Sorry to hear that life got a little bit bigger than the strength you had. You’ll be missed.
My first thought on glimpsing the Mystique on Twitter was that someone should do one of Peter Parker when he’s flashing on Spider-Man (a la Ditko).
(8) – (11) This is pretty ugly. I have the suspicion that other staff member is on social media lockdown at the moment. She was already receiving inappropriate messages before this exploded over the official Facebook.
(8)-(11) It keeps getting uglier and uglier. And with all due respect to Gary McGrath, I don’t think it’s Dave Weingarten is the one being bullied. At best he used extremely bad judgment, and needs to learn when to stop digging. Let’s note he’s not the one receiving death threats.
(8) WORLDCON 75 EXPLAINS.
Wow. What a complete and utter CF.
This case study should be mandatory training for all concoms in how not to do Public Relations. 😐
If Worldcon75 is smart, their first priority will be getting on-staff — volunteer, or paid, if they have to — someone who is experienced in handling PR for controversial situations.
I really don’t get what Dave Weingart is hoping to achieve? Vindication of some sort? If so, then it is having the opposite effect. Protecting his reputation? Again, achieving the opposite.
JJ: Worldcon 75 would have fared better if they just stuck to the early, narrowly-drafted explanation that Weingart didn’t keep his agreement with them.
They’ve been seduced by a misreading of their audience. As has been seen, there are a bunch of long-time conrunners who know Weingart and are evaluating things based on friendships or having worked together. And there are other fans who resent the changing culture represented by codes of conduct, who welcome an opportunity to take a shot back.
Worldcon 75 is attempting to contribute to the safety of the other staff member, so far as I can tell. (I can’t imagine that they would have kept Weingart and cut the other person loose; he was the one who didn’t follow the agreement.) A committee is better off if it understands that certain PR battles can’t be won, and leave it at “We think we did the right thing” rather than rebut every comment.
It’s just FAIL all around.
Before I get to the cf that is 8-11, that Mystique cosplay is one of the most breathtaking things I’ve ever seen, both for artistry and its ephemeral nature.
I think it’s unfortunate that Worldcon 75, in what appears to be a sincere desire to be thoughtful, transparent and a host of other responsive things, has so comprehensively stepped in it. It is serving to obscure how thoroughly Dave Weingart is manipulating the situation, presumably in order to erase any responsibility he might have for creating the issue of lack of safety for another person, making it worse with his actions and then creating a shitstorm that might have been designed to do the most damage to the most people with the least effort.
I don’t actually care if he’s a quintessential nice guy who works hard and knows a host of people who will vouch for his moral, ethical and social purity. I’m not buying it. I missed his FB responses on the Worldcon 75 thread, because they’d just been deleted, but everything else I’ve read indicates someone who is working very hard to erase any doubts that he might be culpable and, as always, when someone is going out of their way to create a lot of sound and fury, I want to look under the noise and see what they’re hiding.
Mike Glyer: Worldcon 75 would have fared better if they just stuck to the early, narrowly-drafted explanation that Weingart didn’t keep his agreement with them… A committee is better off if it understands that certain PR battles can’t be won, and leave it at “We think we did the right thing” rather than rebut every comment.
Exactly.
Leaving completely aside whatever the behavior of Weingart might have been, and whatever mistakes that Worldcon75 might have made in deciding how to handle the original situation, they’ve proceeded to just dig themselves a deeper and deeper hole, and massively damage their reputation.
1) They should have never posted a response. I totally understand the human desire to defend themselves, but there was no response they could have made, without revealing what Weingart had allegedly done to the other person which made them decide to unequivocally support the other person over him, that would have achieved anything. And of course they could not post that.
2) Up to the point where they posted the statement, Weingart’s comments were limited to his own social media. By choosing to post their own statement naming him, Worldcon75 undermined their own credibility and became an aggressor.
3) They attempted to justify their repeated Facebook posts by claiming that Weingart had “tagged” their Facebook page. He had not. He had linked to their Facebook page in a blog post on another site, not on Facebook. This is clearly a false statement, and a stupid one to make, further undermining their credibility.
4) If they were going to absolutely insist on posting a response, it should not have been on Facebook. *headdesk* I just can not imagine what they were thinking, doing that. I can only guess that they were reacting, and not thinking.
5) The statement should have been posted on their website, where no comments were allowed, so that the situation could not continue to be litigated on their public-facing account as has been done on Facebook. (as far as I can tell, they still have posted nothing on their site.)
6) The post should have been very short and simple, and not included any names: “We’ve removed one member from our concom in accordance with what we decided was appropriate. We ask, for the benefit of both concerned parties, that everyone not attack either of them, or attempt to litigate this in social media. This is the only statement we are going to make. We are now going to concentrate on moving forward and putting on the best Worldcon75 that we possibly can.” Instead, they’ve just piled on more and more justifications, which just make them look worse and worse.
7) The statement should have been “signed” with the names of the people who made the decision. I mean, seriously, “you can look the names up in PR2 on our website”, something they’ve said repeatedly to the numerous people who asked who made the decision??? Seriously??? WTF. This continual uncredited, accountability-evading posting on Facebook, with an admission that several different people have actually posted in that thread anonymously, all under the nym of “Worldcon75” (WTFF???), is just un-effing-believable. What sort of professional chairs would think that appropriate?
8) Worldcon75 used the word “stalked” in their initial Facebook statement. This was a huge mistake, both legally and professionally.
9) Worldcon75 claimed that Weingart “wrote belligerent emails delivering ultimatums about it to our Staff Services division”. Well, congratulations, now the texts of those e-mails have been published — and at best one can say that Worldcon75 misrepresented their content, and at worst, one can say that they lied in a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion.
I don’t think that there’s any way out of the hole they’ve dug themselves at this point. They can only stop the mass of continued public commenting on their Facebook page by deleting their Facebook post or their Facebook page, and if they do that, they will (rightly) be accused of trying to cover things up.
What a fricking mess. I hope that future concoms take a good hard look at this, and learn from it.
Regarding #2, I read “All Summer in a Day” as a child and it *still* haunts me today.
@JJ
8) Worldcon75 used the word “stalked” in their initial Facebook statement. This was a huge mistake, both legally and professionally.
And people here and elsewhere are saying the other party’s “safety” is at risk. Without knowing the details of what had previously happened, this seems to be reaching a little. (and I’m not trying to suggest that physical danger is a necessary threshold for someone to not want to have interactions with another person.)
So what did weingart supposedly do to this other person to get this started? All I hear are vagaries that imply I know what really happened and you do not.
Bill: And people here and elsewhere are saying the other party’s “safety” is at risk. Without knowing the details of what had previously happened, this seems to be reaching a little. (and I’m not trying to suggest that physical danger is a necessary threshold for someone to not want to have interactions with another person.)
I’m not addressing that side of it at all.
What I’m saying is that unless stalking charges had been filed, use of the word “stalked” was inappropriate. “Harassed” would have been a much better choice.
Is there no word in Finnish for “public relations”? :/
@JJ — I realized that you weren’t addressing that side of it — I just used your comment as a jumping off point.
What I’m saying is that unless stalking charges had been filed, use of the word “stalked” was inappropriate. “Harassed” would have been a much better choice.
I’m not sure it was a “much” better choice. Worldcon is only saying he didn’t follow rules, not that he harassed her.
Bill: Worldcon is only saying he didn’t follow rules, not that he harassed her.
What they said was “another staff member who reported feeling stalked by him in the past”.
Regardless of whether that was the way the other person phrased it to them, it was irresponsible of Worldcon75 to use that phrasing in their statement.
Agreed
@James Davis Nicoll, via a breadcrumb trail of links from (2) to here, puts his finger on precisely why I can’t reread Bradbury: Are there any women in Bradbury who get to have Big Ideas and make Grand Speeches or do they exist merely so the men have someone to declaim to?
OK, it’s not the only reason, but it’s a big one.
Problem with statement from W75 is that it tries to be reasonable against people who acts on their feelings for a friend. You can’t argue against feelings with logic. But at least, looking at the defenders of Weingart, I’ll make a note of several names that I would never trust in a place of power.
Another comment from Alexandra Erin:
Wasn’t really a comment from Alexandra. It was a whole blogpost and a good one.
Guess:
This exaxtly the type information that we shouldn’t force people to put up on the internet. Is it to shame the Weingart the information is necessary? Or to put pressure on the other staffer?
Because this is nothing W75 did any judgement on. It is totally irrelevant for the case.
And this talk about not being allowed to use the word Stalker… It is calling a spade a spade. It is enough with reading Weingart’s own posts to see this:
1) He meets a woman at a conference and she nicely tells him that if he ever is around her place in Sweden, he can have a place to sleep.
2) This, by pure chance, happens two weeks later.
3) Either something happened there or it was the way he interacted with her, because she told him off to not contact her all the time on Facebook messenger.
4) Again, a week later, she has to tell him off, this time on commenting on Facebook.
5) Still she feels she has to block him on Facebook.
6) He is told by a common friend of her to stay away and not contact her, still he sends her an apology.
6) He writes a a long blogpost about her one year ago. That is not to stay away.
7) The absolute first comment he writes in the W75-chat is by pure random chance on a post created by her. Directly after her comment.
8) When asked not to post there by staff, he ignores them and comments again and again until shutoff.
9) He refuses any kind of responsibility, refuses to accept that there could be any kind of consequences, refuses to accept regulations that would keep him away from her.
I’m sorry, but this is VERY stalkerish behaviour.
So Ive finally finished the 3-Body-triology!
Three Body : A masterpiece! Cool structure, original and surprises – I even dreamed of the book, which rarely happens
Dark Forrest: All the cool things of the first book were absend. A lot of stuff happend just for the sake of stuff happening and to create a sense of passing time- the overall arch was pretty forseeable and it was just a matter of waitring how exactly it would play out. Still the end was satisfying and there were a lot of cool ideas, especially in the second half. All in all it reminded me of David Brins Existence, but without the problems.
Death´s End started cool, unfortunetly the start didnt have much too do in terms of story. If the second book was not so clean, the third book was a mess, especially in the first half. There are still very cool ideas and questions and surprises, I just think that their connection dont work well. There are great chapters, that just hang in there. For the first time in these books some developments also feel unrealistic. And while the second half got much better than the first the end took a nosedive in my eyes. It reminded me of the end of Spielbergs A.I.- of course it weasnt as bad as that, but in both cases I felt an earlier sad ending would have benefited the story more than an abstract, very disconnected one (I dont want to spoiler more).
So yeah, Im disspointed with the resolution and while I tip my head for all the cool ideas and science in the third book I cant help of feeling cheated a bit. I was hoping for a cleaner, better resolution.
“The path of the righteous pixel is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil scrolls”
::tickbox::
Hampus Eckerman: And this talk about not being allowed to use the word Stalker… It is calling a spade a spade.
Regardless of what the circumstances are (and a couple of the points you’ve made may not be correct, from what I’ve read):
Worldcon75 was absolutely out-of-line in the way they’ve behaved in responding to this. No, they don’t get to use the word “stalker”, unless actual charges have been filed. In fact, they shouldn’t have been commenting on any of this at all.
The fact is that they have done all of this commenting to support their personal sense of feeling attacked and their egos, rather than because it was the appropriate way to respond. It was not. They are not a private individual, who gets to grouse on social media. They are supposed to be a professional organization, and they should be responding in a professional way. They did not.
At this point, in my opinion, it’s a tossup as to whether they or Weingart have behaved worse. Because as an ostensibly “professional” organization — and one which is representing the WSFS — there is a higher standard of expectation of behavior for them than there is for someone as an individual… a standard which they have massively failed to meet.
JJ:
It is all from Weingart’s post, so if they aren’t correct, bring it up with him.
This is of course total bullshit. First because they didn’t use the word Stalker. They said “another staff member who reported feeling stalked”. Which is obviously true, and also obvious from the two blogposts Weingart himself has already written. What do you mean by allowed? Not by you? By the law?
Yes, W75 has made errors. The largest one allowing comments. The second one naming names.
But mostly this is a pit Weingart has dug for himself. A pit several “friends” wants to dig deeper.
Hampus Eckerman: This is of course total bullshit. First because they didn’t use the word Stalker. They said “another staff member who reported feeling stalked”. Which is obviously true, and also obvious from the two blogposts Weingart himself has already written. What do you mean by allowed? Not by you? By the law?
I haven’t used the word “allowed’. You have.
The point I’m making is that they should not have said any of this in their statement. They should not have been repeating things said by the person who alleged misbehavior on the part of Weingart. They should not have said anything at all. They are not an individual, who can get away with airing grievances on social media. They are supposed to be a professional organization — and they have behaved as anything but that.
They have massively fucked up here with the way they’ve handled this. And it is not only going to be a continuing problem because of continuing posts on their Facebook wall, it is going to cause problems for them as a convention, and it is causing massive damage to the reputation of Worldcon.
Oh hey what was that discussion a few days back where we discussed absolute faith that staff of major cons can absolutely be trusted with sensitive information without us worrying about an internet shitshow?
(Not that I feel we need a roll call or anything, but I’m glad the Worldcon75 staff managed to make this call.
PR about harassment is bloody hard, because your priorities are keeping things calm; guaranteeing that people involved are safe and feel safe; and protecting people’s privacy. Whereas in opposition, Half The Internet is clamoring to criticize your decision, your policy, your handling, your PR.
I hope this doesn’t explode too badly.)
I see it as a massive damage to the reputation of people now attacking Worldcon. They are people I hope I never see working on the staff of a convention. Hopefully never see at a convention at all.
Also, a few days ago, everyone wanted rhis kind of information not only public. They wanted it put into a database where everyone could look it up for years to come, even people from other conventions.
W75 had made mistakes. But the assholes that keep on attacking, working themselves up to righteous rage? They are the people who destroy conventions. Sucks out all energy of the staff. They destroy on purpose.
What should be done now is close all comments on the Facebook post. ASAP. Before the people there work themselves into a lynchmob because one person is not allowed to work for free.
Hampus Eckerman: W75 had made mistakes. But the assholes that keep on attacking, working themselves up to righteous rage? They are the people who destroy conventions. Sucks out all energy of the staff. They destroy on purpose.
People like me care about Worldcon and the WSFS, and people like me have a right — have a duty — to speak up when people who have been entrusted with the name and reputation of Worldcon screw up.
People like me, who are willing to speak up, are the ones who’ve gotten cons to up their game, to start creating Codes of Conduct, and to stop hiding fuckups by sweeping them under the rug.
You may want to just pretend that these fuckups didn’t happen, and handwave it all away, and act as if everything is just fine. But that’s what was done for decades, and nothing ever got better by doing that.
This is people working for free. Everyone spitting on them should remember that. And be careful, think of how this will affect them. How much of time and energy that it takes to handle shitstorms like this. Instead of trying to whip up more fury, more outrage.
I really hope the convention staff can ignore all the screamers with their demands. Ignore those so constantly intent on finding faults. And instead listen to those that are constructive. Who acknowledges that it is a hard situation and are grateful that there are people who are willing to take all the hate, anger and scorn that comes with the job.
What people have a duty to is:
* Be constructive.
* Be supportive.
* Be helpful.
There is no duty to whip up more shitstorms to make the job even harder for staffers. If you do that, you are a drain on the convention. Not a gain.
And to make it clear:
This is not about pretending that nothing has happened. Saying that mistakes were made is good. Coming with helpful tips on how best go forward is better.
But just attackong on how totally fucked up everiything is, how massively everyone has failed? Well, if this is how people usually act against staff, then I can’t understand why any one would want to hold a convention.
Oh, and this is personal. For this is the reason why I went drom organizing 50 evente in a year to five. Because the entitlement of everyone coming. All the demands and shouts about how I failed when I worked my ass of for free.
Only a few such voices, but they destroy so much.
Hampus: Amen to all of that 🙁
There’s a pretty famous case a while back over a man who thought he was entitled to a woman’s time and energy writing a post castigating her, calling her despicable things and accusing her falsely. When called on it, he doubled down and said that he in no way meant for it to blow back on the woman he was writing about, that he was just trying to set the record straight. It turned into a swampy morass of entitlement and hatred that resulted in untold amount of hate and harassment being poured out it’s targets.
Y’all might remember it.
It’s usually a pretty safe bet that if you’re on the side that Theodore Beale is on, that maybe you should take a hard look at yourself.
I have not seen anyone on the side of Beale and I do not like that kind of insinuations regarding others.
The whole business with Worldcon75 makes me wonder how conventions ever get off the ground and actually operate. As per Hampus’ responses above, I mean.
1. Oy vey!
2. Seems pretty clear that a “code of conduct” is one of the items that needs to be in place when the bid initially announces, and presented at Fannish Inquisitions, not something created later. (Also seems pretty clear that most everyone ought to be familiar with the general outlines of such a thing by now and should and obviously will be held accountable for those general outlines.)
3. If we are going to be accepting responsibility for ensuring safety of staff and attendees, we’re going to be running in to this kind of “past history” stuff again in future. This would suggest a couple of things: deeper staff inquiries prior to offering positions; a general policy for dealing with interpersonal staff issues, based on past interactions, that may arise during the course of putting the con together. (1. any staff member engaging in unacceptable behaviors is let go, regardless of position or impact on con. 2. allegation is not enough, but cons can’t afford endless rounds of “one said, the other said”…nor can the con allow personal issues to interfere (simply not liking someone ought not to be enough – general case, not a comment on the current one). Should potential staff fill out a “won’t/can’t work with X” list?)
Since many of the experienced folks working on cons also interact outside of con-running, we can expect more of this kind of thing to crop up in future. And cons can’t afford the hit of endlessly resolving such in public. Cons need to be more proactive in anticipating the possibilities.
And now for something completely different…
China Mieville’s “The City and the City” is an Amazon UK Deal of the Day at £1.29.
And thanks to Brexit, the pound is surprisingly low right now.
I know nobody involved with Worldcon.
Only one person has been making inflammatory posts that got someone harassed online. Sure the identity of the person was obscured… badly. I know it was badly because the person is getting harassed online. Invoking Gamergate here isn’t out of line. I have no reason to believe that Weingart’s post was intended to cause the reaction it did, but I also have no reason to believe that it wasn’t.
And then he included the same badly obscured picture in his second post.
Summary from my point of view: there’s an internal dispute that causes friction within the con organizers, so the source of the friction is let go.
Said source decides to legislate publicly. That right there says this is someone I would never agree to work with.
Said source’s own email release shows him being asked to abide by social restrictions for the good of the con, and flat out refusing and also refusing to take responsibility for their mistake. That’s also someone I’d be refusing to work with as a volunteer.
In summary, I agree with Alexandra. Nobody is making themselves look good but Dave is the entire source and cause of all the problems. If he ever works for a Con again I’ll be surprised and a little worried. Not because of the original incident, but because of the way he has dragged the Con through the mud over his slighted pride.
As a point of order: Worldcon 75 has not, to my knowledge, actually repeated any allegations made by the other staffer. They have not accused anyone of stalking, abuse, or harassment. So many people are seeing these things in their statements because, I believe, it’s what they expect to see. But it’s not there. None of it.
From a PR standpoint, I certainly agree the statement should have been tighter and posted in a static medium rather than a social one. They gain nothing and lose much by litigating the case in a hostile court, and the court will be hostile because the people most upset have the most reason to speak and the least motivation to listen.
Having a code of conduct in place for the bid is something that seems obvious in. the light of this case, but it wasn’t obvious before, as it has never proven so spectacularly necessary before, at least not in a public way. Chalk it up to the ongoing changes in fannish culture.
And, it’s not like a CoC would have gone into the detail level of “A participant who has been asked not to contact somebody,shall understand that this also covers replying with multiple forum postings etc. etc.”
The Code of Conduct would have said “Abide by our Response staff’s decisions and judgement when they tell you to.” In some form or another. HIS boundary was clear; their judgement was clear; the “absence” of a complete CoC doesn’t really seem very relevant here.
Never been to a Worldcon. Never plan to attend one. Don’t know any of the people.
I’m trying to understand what Dave was actually let go for. From what I can understand he:
1] Posted on an “all con staff” thread on meatballs.
2] He was told he could not post on any thread; email, or contact anyone outside his immediate work group for any reason.
3] Dave said that condition #2 made his job impossible.
4] Dave was removed.
I’m mystified. Did Dave contact the individual in question directly after being asked to stop? Was any of his posts aimed or even reference this individual? Was he discussing this individual with other people at the Con?
Seems like a weird over-reaction, but I could well be missing something.
It would be nice if anyone could either confirm this is what happened or enlighten me about something I missed. Please DO NOT TELL ME to “get educated” or “study harder” or something else idiotic. Also, I’m not concerned about post-conflict messages by third parties sent on social media. That is on others unless Dave or some other party orchestrated a harassment campaign.
Thanks in advance. This is just weird and I’m having trouble grasping the issue.