Sasquan has decided that Lou Antonelli’s letter to the Spokane PD about David Gerrold violated its Code of Conduct, but at Gerrold’s request set aside a decision to ban him for the reasons discussed in the following public statement.
The Executive Committee of Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention, would like to address the matter of actions taken by Mr. Lou Antonelli with regards to one of our Guests of Honor, Mr. David Gerrold. On August 1st, Mr. Antonelli participated in a podcast in which he stated that he had written a letter to the Spokane Police Department, in which he stated to them that Mr. Gerrold was “insane and a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention is going on”.
Normally, online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee. However, Mr. Antonelli’s letter, which requested police action against Mr. Gerrold during the time of the convention, is within our purview. As such, we found that there was a strong possibility this act was a violation of our posted harassment policy[1], particularly if the letter had, in fact, been sent.
The Executive Committee then turned the matter over to our Operations Head, Ms. Robbie Bourget, who initiated formal proceedings in accordance with that policy. During these proceedings, it came to light that Mr. Antonelli had issued a formal apology to Mr. Gerrold and admitted culpability: he actually sent the letter, not merely claimed to have sent it.
We thoroughly reviewed all available data, including email from both involved parties, social media postings, discussions with key committee members, and so forth. The inescapable conclusion was that Mr. Antonelli had violated our Code of Conduct in this matter. The recommendation was to refund Mr. Antonelli’s membership and prohibit his entry to any convention location or function.
However, after the recommendation was made, Mr. Gerrold, as the aggrieved party, specifically requested that the Executive Committee set aside this recommendation on the grounds that Mr. Antonelli did apologize, is sending a retraction to the Spokane Police Department and because, as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony.
The Executive Committee has chosen to accept Mr. Gerrold’s request, and considers the matter closed as of this time. Ms. Bourget has spoken and corresponded with the Spokane Police Department, and they also consider the matter closed. We would like to thank Ms. Bourget for the calm professionalism she lent to the proceedings, and Mr. Antonelli and Mr. Gerrold for coming to a settlement that benefits not just them, but the Worldcon and its members.
While some wonder why the committee has not taken official notice of Antonelli’s interaction with Carrie Cuinn as well, perhaps that is explained by the statement “online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I am a cop (ob NickMamatas: yes I have a pseud so believe me or not, your call) and yes, we do have crackpot files, at least informally (as in, oh, you got the call from the guy who likes to confess to the murder from 1967? yeah, every new detective gets that guy eventually*).
Also, be careful about dialing 911 without pressing “send” or the equivalent on your cell phone (or even 9-1- in some places) as the call may autocomplete and connect you to 911. At least in our agency, standard practice is to send out officers to “check the welfare” on any 911 hangup or “oops, misdialed” call to check and make sure the caller is really okay and nothing looks suspicious at the scene.
Both of these are to make sure that things are actually okay and it is not a case where someone is unable to complete their 911 call because they are being physically disrupted by an attacker or they are so sick or injured that they can’t finish dialing or accidentally disconnected themselves.
So if one of your concerns is the safety of everyone at the con from the police, and it is understandable given the various recent news events, be aware that partially dialing 911 could cause police to show up. I am even more concerned that that may happen and problems may result if Sasquan has already been in contact with Spokane PD about potential problems. This may lead to 911 hangups/misdials being treated with a higher priority than they would otherwise.
* Example drawn from personal experience
**I don’t know whether the 911 completion thing is a function of particular phones, particular cell systems, or is universal. I’ve just been told by the 911 operators at our agency that it happens.
I don’t think violent behavior is necessary to establish when we’re talking about a convention enforcing a no-harassment policy. Harassment covers a much broader range of offensive and abusive behavior than violence.
Oh, good, cmm, I figured you’d be able to provide commentary on Crackpot Files.
Also, I am aware that accidental 911 connects are potentially a serious issue — but thank for you for the reminder.
@rob_matic, https://file770.com/?p=24321&cpage=1#comment-316350
I believe I already did:
And it seems that as far as Sasquan is considered, the discussion is already over.
But doesn’t change the fact that usage of the term ‘SWAT’ to describe Mr. Antonelli’s actions is both lurid and false.
@RedWombat, https://file770.com/?p=24321&cpage=1#comment-316368
Oh, but you are special here. Very special, as twitter has 140 character limitation per tweet.
Tuomas Vainio: But doesn’t change the fact that usage of the term ‘SWAT’ to describe Mr. Antonelli’s actions is both lurid and false.
Still no comment on the actual issue here? Quelle surprise.
So you agree with me, but you think my tone is too “indignant”?
You specifically? No.. Some other people on this thread and threads I’ve seen elseweb? Yes.
I wouldn’t argue with Sasquan’s Operations Head. Robbie is quite capable of handling things herself.
Allow me to amend this.
Cuinn did not ask them not to ban him. She asked them not to investigate the part of all this that involved her as part of their decision-making process, because she felt that what he did wasn’t criminal, he was just a jerk.
Cuinn spoke up to clarify this elsewhere, so I feel I should clarify it here.
She may well think his actions toward Gerrold should have gotten him banned; she just asked them not to investigate him over his comments about her and the harassment that ensued.
[And I wish my spellchecker would learn the word “Cuinn”…]
re Kurt’s question about Antonelli’s record thus far:
What he has shown in my opinion is a pattern of spectacularly overreacting and escalating over minor provocations. Called a name online = track down name caller and try to get them in trouble at their workplace. While so far all of his huffing and puffing has been online and long distance, I don’t want to physically be in the same place and find out what a spectacular overreaction looks like in person.
If you do some reading about patterns of abusive behavior, the exhibited behavior and communication of every single prominent puppy — Day, Wright, Torgersen, Correia, Antonelli, and TK are the ones I’m thinking of — sends up red flags. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily physical threats, but I wouldn’t trust any of them to be in the same place with. They all certainly show signs of potentially being verbally and emotionally abusive to anyone around them.
“Believe people when they show you who they are.”
It’s been a feature of phone exchanges since the days of the electro-mechanical switch that the police/exchange have to disconnect the connection once it’s been made – it had to stay powered back in the days when to trace a number somebody had to physically run through the exchange to find the active connection and the originating number.
With cellphones, its a US government network requirement that the location of 911 calls be reported from the phone when the call is connected.
“It’s not really within Sasquan’s purview to police that (as they note in their announcement, about online disagreements), and not part of making Sasquan a safe con-going experience.”
This is a staggeringly poor argument. If MZB only abused children in her own home, that wouldn’t be in the con’s purview and banning her wouldn’t make a safer con-going experience? How many times does Lou have to attempt to disrupt someone’s life or “accidentally” set mobs on someone before they treat it like an issue of prevention rather than mitigation?
Kurt Busiek: As it turns out, Sasquan did contact Carrie Cuinn after all. She said she didn’t want him banned on her account.
That is certainly the hub of the nub of the gist of marrow of this bone, yes.
I was asking the question of someone who seemed to plan to be on the alert for sudden violence requiring a 911 call. I didn’t say or mean to suggest that was the only kind of behavior that could trigger a no-harassment enforcement.
Fair enough. I’m not feeling particularly indignant about this, to be honest. I just think it’s a mistake. In some ways it feels like Sasquan is trying to placate two sides and satisfying neither, just like Tom Doherty throwing Irene Gallo under the bus with his open letter. That did nothing to placate the torch-wielding mob and made a lot of Tor fans angry at how Gallo was treated.
My past personal experience with a couple of guys who behaved the way Antonelli has is that their aggression is all just talk — until it isn’t.
This. A lot of guys who threaten a lot seem to end up actually acting on those threats eventually.
Another thing to think about: Antonelli claims to have been roughed up in his time working as a newspaper editor. Given his known tendency to try to paint himself as the aggrieved party even when speaking to people who know that the facts show he is not, what are the chances that the “roughing up” was the result of some sort of scuffle he started? Or was he actually the victim that time? I’d say that there is a reasonable chance of either.
“as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony.”
Seriously No! The days when you got an exemption on harassment because you are called Asimov. Should be long gone. No one is so important that they get a free pass on harrassment.
In some ways it feels like Sasquan is trying to placate two sides and satisfying neither
That is almost certainly the case, but then, they’re almost certainly stuffed no matter what they do. But this is has always been one of the failure modes of fan run events and short of giving up on the concept, I don’t see an easy solution.
Also, if you are attending Sasquan in person, given the rhetoric that has flown around, the overlap in some cases with GG, the possibility that certain people like to act as instigators with a vow to “burn the Hugos down” and who *won’t* be there in person to get caught up in anything, and the fact that there are fans and followers who might decide to escalate things on their own…
AND, given the fact that this week there has now been a lot of words about “swatting” and Sasquan being thrown around…
I would be horrified but not surprised if some stupidly evil person decided to actually swat the convention venue from afar. If I were at a convention and saw a lot of police around and moving quickly, I would move toward a wall, out of the way. I would keep my hands visible, move slowly, and keep my hands well clear of any costume element that looks like a weapon. If I were carrying a costume weapon or any kind of prop, I would stoop slowly and lay it on the ground, or just drop it if I could do it safely. I would be very very aware that a con can look like a completely chaotic freakshow to any mundane person walking in off the street, and that would go double for someone going in with a heightened awareness (and adrenaline rush) specifically looking for anything threatening. I really hope nothing like that happens. But if I were going to be there, I would have that in the back of my mind and be ready to act as above if I saw anything going down.
Still no comment on the actual issue here? Quelle surprise.
Well, there aren’t Amazon reviews for Tuomas to crib from, so he’s kind of at a loss.
Right, because when they said they can’t referee online arguments, they really meant they were talking about incidents of child abuse, so let’s make sure to treat Antonelli not like a belligerent fool, but like a calculating, serial criminal who preys on children.
If you’d kept reading, maybe you’d have gotten all the way to the part that said:
So I would think that would cover the threat of Antonelli abusing children at the con, if he had a record of that. I don’t think he does, though. So perhaps what they’d be thinking about is whether having a record of (at least once) publishing a business e-mail online was likely to result in a danger to people at the con.
How many incidents of publishing someone’s e-mail rejection letter online (with name attached) does it take before they treat it like something he might actually do at the con? How can Sasquan be kept safe from someone serially being a douchebag via e-mail? He might send douchebag e-mails from a smartphone right there in the hucksters’ room. Or from home, so having him there or not doesn’t seem to make a real difference in preventing that sort of event.
In case your next gambit is to suggest that Requires Hate did her nastiness via e-mail, I’ll prophylactically re-mention that Antonelli’s assholery is not directly comparable to RH’s, so that’s not really the same either.
Chad wrote: “I think it sends a very mixed and unsavory message regarding how harassment policies are handled and enforced.”
& rcade wrote: “Sasquan’s board is now on record that they know he’s engaged in harassment but are allowing him to attend anyway. What message does that send to people who expect a convention to be free of harassment and other abusive behavior?”
I agree. Policy only works if you apply it consistently, impartially, and universally.
By Sasquan’s own admission, Antonelli violated the con’s Code of Conduct, and the normal consequence of that is to get your money refunded and be banned from attending.
Antonelli apologizing, retracting, and expressing remorse is appropriate. I don’t agree that acting appropriately for having done something wrong means you should necessarily therefore be exempt from normal consequences for what you have done.
While I appreciate that taking into account the feelings of the aggrieved party is a relevant factor, I nonetheless think that was a bad decision. Because:
(1) It implies that harassment is not harassment, but rather something the harasser will only ever do to this one sole person, and therefore it’s up to this one person (rather than an impartially and consistently applied code-of-conduct procedure) whether or not the harasser should experience consqeuences.
(2) The stated rationale for not banning is that David Gerrold doesn’t want Antonelli banned; this gives the impression that if an important friend speaks up for you, then the rules don’t apply to you. I assume that is not the intention (and, of course, they are certainly not friends!), but this impression is created when the current WorldCon GoH is cited as the person influencing the committee’s decision not to enforce the code-of-conduct.
(3) The stated rationale that Antonelli is a Hugo nominee who wants to attend the ceremony gives the impression that if you’re an award-nominee (or in some way “important” or “special”), then the rules don’t apply to you.
These are problems we’ve seen before with sf/f conventions making special allowances for harassers—the perception that if you or your chums are in some way perceived as “important,” then you get different treatment as a harasser.
Additionally, I think the fact that the aggrieved was big-hearted enough to insist Antonelli be allowed to attend, in this very high-profile incident, seems not unlikely to place pressure on other aggrieved parties to “follow the WorldCon GoH’s example” when they really don’t want to and will actually not feel safe/comfortable if the harasser attends the con.
I understand why David Gerrold wanted to hold the high ground and be a class act, especially with the Puppy mess being so ugly and volatile. Either way, Antonelli has created a mess—whether he attends or gets banned (or voluntarily stays home), there will be angry people saying angry things. It’s a complicated situation… but I also think that impartial, consistent, and universal application of policy is the fairest way to handle complicated, volatile situations, because that eliminates personal favoritism and emotional decision-making.
If we don’t apply code-of-conduct consistently, what we’re saying is, “Since no one important cares about you and/or the aggrieved doesn’t want to be around you, we’re banning you for harassment,” and “But since you’re well-known around here and the aggrieved wants to be big-hearted, you get to harass someone without consequences.”
JJ, https://file770.com/?p=24321&cpage=2#comment-316432
As we can see from Mike Glyer’s additions to the comments, not all information is available yet. There is just too much speculation, mispresentation, and even outright lies spreaded whenever one these Hugo debacles hits the fan.
Which brings us to that age old bullshit asimmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
A more recent related example would be: http://dreamingaboutotherworlds.blogspot.co.uk/1970/03/author-antonelli-lou.html
The primary criticisms towards it:
– “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Usage of unreliable sources. (It is either a case of wrong pages being linked, or quotes that cannot be found through the given links.)
So yeah…
JJ, you just have to do your best to quell your surprise.
To “CMM”: In the area where I live, auto completion of 911 calls didn’t happen with the older, regular 911 software we had, but it did come into use with the upgrade called “Enhanced-911” or “E911”. I imagine that a lot of agencies still have the older software in use. Good advice, though. One should always be careful about such things.
I’m new to the leadup to the Hugos this year — is there any past precedent for nominees acting so, well, assholishly in the weeks and months before the event? Because this whole thing has been rather amazing.
I guess what prompts me is the whole “yeah he’s been a complete jerk and probably shouldn’t be here but he’s a nominee” thing. anything like a precedent to this?
@cmm
If I were carrying a costume weapon or any kind of prop,
Suspect may be armed with pulse rifle, lightsaber or magic axe.
Mike Glyer wrote: “As it turns out, Sasquan did contact Carrie Cuinn after all. She said she didn’t want him banned on her account.”
In what way was Antontelli’s misstep with Cuinn relevant to Sasquan? His behavior to her had absolutely nothing to do with the convention, or with their both being convention attendees. It was strictly a business matter.
(If cons are going to start offering to ban people for bad behavior unrelated to the convention, I’ve got a list of agents, editors, publishers, and writers I will enjoy never seeing at another convention! Is there a form I can fill out?)
@Aaron, https://file770.com/?p=24321&cpage=2#comment-316448
Ah, how lovely. A truly unexpected verbatim leaning towards the usual ad hominem tendencies.
Anyhow, I got other things to do. Have fun on your outrage train.
Cmm, well, now I know how my cat managed to dial 911 while I was at work, some years ago. Apparently he managed to step on the “speaker” button and then must have hit 9 and maybe 1. At time time, I couldn’t figure it out, because there was no “one-touch emergency” button on the telephone.
I found out about it when I got home to a message on my answering machine from the local cops who’d done a driveby on my house, Just In Case. (I called the NON-emergency number for the cops and apologized fulsomely. And set up a paw barrier on the telephone….)
@Tuomas Vainio: Technically it wasn’t SWATTING. It was merely an attempt to use law enforcement to harass or intimidate.
You got anything worthwhile to say?
The primary criticisms towards it:
Aww, you’re so cute when you try to lie.
Regardless of what Sasquan’s concom has decided in re: l’affaire Antonelli, it’s clear that Crazy Uncle Lou will be under a microscope for the entire duration of his attendance at this Worldcon. It’s also clear that nobody is going to give Crazy Uncle Lou the benefit of the doubt for any misbehavior (any instance of poor impulse control, etc) he commits whilst at the con. His Puppy confreres will of course make excuses for whatever bad behavior Crazy Uncle Lou exhibits, but that’s not “benefit of the doubt”, that’s Kulturkampf operatives closing ranks on behalf of a fellow operative.
Given the rather large amount of faanish ill-will the Pups-in-general have earned, plus the Antonelli-specific opprobrium which Crazy Uncle Lou has brought down upon himself, I suspect there is a non-zero probability that at least one fan may go out of their way to poke at Crazy Uncle Lou in hopes of triggering the sort of disproportionate response which has earned him his aforementioned opprobrium. Not the sort of thing I actually want to see happen, mind… but given how hot tempers can get and have gotten already, what are the odds that every last one of Sasquan’s 4,000+ attending members will find the strength to refrain from poking at Crazy Uncle Lou? [Clint Eastwood voice] “Do you feel lucky, Sasquan? Well… do ya?”
Crazy Uncle Lou had damn well better be on his very best behavior, all the time he spends at Sasquan. If not… consequences are left as an exercise for the reader.
By all means, deliberately mischaracterize my analogy and respond to that. Because that’s totally what I said. *eyeroll*
How about we treat him like a calculating, serial harasser, which he is.
I did read the rest of your post. It wasn’t any better an argument. They pass the responsibility to the victim instead of taking any themselves. But they also make sure the victim knows that someone more influential already asked for the abuser not to be punished? That is so messed up.
I didn’t say they could prevent him from doing any of the awful things he might do. They should prevent him from doing those things in their space by banning him based on this existing patter of behavior, rather than hoping there won’t be a next time.
I got other things to do.
Reading Amazon reviews?
Ah, how lovely.
It is more respect than you have earned.
THIS MEANS NOTHING TO HIM!
OOOOOOOOH VAINIO!
Not quite. Their policy specifies that the consequence could be being banned, but could also be a verbal warning.
Their treatment of Antonelli, at least so far, is consistent with their written policy.
Sasquan saying they decided not to ban Antonelli because Gerrold asked them to sounds wrongheaded to me, and here’s why.
In the U.S., when someone commits a crime against another person, the entity bringing the charges and assigning punishment isn’t the victim — it’s the STATE. That is, the community. While prosecutors are known to sometimes give the wishes of the victim consideration, it is never the case in criminal matters that the victim is the one who decides whether punishment should be doled out to the offender and what that punishment should be. That’s obviously because the victim might easily be either too lenient or too harsh on the offender due to personal bias, but the community as a whole has an overriding concern about the offender’s behavior, not just in how they interacted with the victim, but in how they might be expected to function as a member of the community in light of their behavior.
Now, Sasquan isn’t a legal organization of any kind and isn’t bound by these standards, but I do think they are underweighting the ramifications of Lou Antonelli’s actions on the community, and the effect on the community of him going unpunished by SFF-dom after his appalling behavior. His offense was primarily against David Gerrold, yes, but it was also an offense against the membership of Sasquan as a whole and against SFF fandom in general. I am dismayed that the issue seemed to come down to “David said he was satisfied so everyone else will have to be satisfied too.” I don’t think that’s valid, and what it says about Sasquan’s lack of commitment to their Code of Conduct is disturbing.
One of the things that has been so atrocious about Puppygate is the way the Puppies seem not to give a damn about the collateral damage of their actions. They feel they were justified in striking against the mythical “SJWs,” but they lashed out against all of WorldCon, and fans of written SFF everywhere, as well as all the authors and fan creators not a part of their slate. It makes me think of Chris Christie’s staff during Bridgegate where someone expressed worries about schoolkids being trapped for hours in buses and the flippant reply was “Who cares? Their parents voted for the other guy.” (Paraphrased.) Is collateral damage something people of good will should be ignoring?
As a supporting member of Sasquan I would like to request that the Committee consider the grievance of the community against Antonelli for his actions, and not just the grievance of David Gerrold. I respect David’s desire to make peace, but it’s not the only consideration of worth in this situation.
@ed
Suspect is 3 feet tall, bearded, wearing chainmail and an iron helmet and carrying a +5 Mallet of Moderation.
Ed said:
Any of which look a lot more like a “real” weapon than a cellphone or a wallet, but police have mistaken both of the latter for weapons and shot people.
It seemed fair, since that’s what you were doing. They didn’t remotely say they couldn’t take child molesting into account, but you pretended they did and responded to that.
Maybe he’ll send a letter to the police from the show, or call someone’s boss from the show. Maybe he’ll post intemperately on Facebook…from the show.
I don’t know what standards they are held to, though SWOC is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, and is sponsoring Sasquan.
Scalzi, is that you?
Kurt Busiek said:
True, but their statement on the issue made a clear and direct indication that their Executive Committee recommended he be refused attendance due to his violation of the Code of Conduct. Whatever their general policy may be, they are directly violating their own specific recommendation on this incident at the behest of David Gerrold. Which is, again, an understandable mistake because the views of the victim are commonly given deference, but it remains a mistake because the only way to make sure that Gerrold is the last victim of Antonelli’s bad behavior is to not give him another chance to repeat it.
Kurt also said:
Or maybe he’ll live-tweet photos of people he doesn’t like…from the show…stating, “Such-and-such is behaving badly, here’s their name and contact info and address and by the way we know they’re not home right now so any fans of mine who wanna break a few windows, now’s your chance!” Because he’s an asshole with poor impulse control who likes to find ways to make people’s lives miserable, and he’s got a large social media presence. Please don’t downgrade his capability to do harm just because he’s not packing heat or something.
The committee has thankfully distanced itself from the, “as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony”, remark, saying
“Those were David Gerrold’s words, not ours. We do not agree that being a Hugo nominee (or having any other status) gets anyone a free pass. However, we do believe that being the Guest of Honor, as well as the primary victim in the incident, gives David extra say in having his wishes honored.” I am also pleased that they approached Cuin before deciding.
Kurt points out that one of the possible consequences besides banning is a verbal warning (which apparently Antonelli is getting?). Either that wasn’t in the Sasquan statement or else I didn’t read the statement carefully enough. Either way, okay, it’s within the standard consequences.
But according to their statement, they had decided to ban him from the con–and then changed their minds and decided on a different/lesser consqeuence (verbal warning), on the bases with which I disagree (the aggreieved–WorldCon GoH–wants him to attend, and he’s a Hugo nominee).
I’m not in a fever of hysteria about this, but it does strike me as the same-old same-old sf/f convention mistake being repeated. I spent two years writing, overseeing, and implementing policy for a national writers’ organization, Ninc, and I dislike the inconsistent, depends-on-how-people-feel way that sf/f cons exercise their own written policies. Ninc would probably be mired in chaos and lawsuits if we ran it that way.
DMS on August 11, 2015 at 1:20 pm said:
“It’s not really within Sasquan’s purview to police that (as they note in their announcement, about online disagreements), and not part of making Sasquan a safe con-going experience.”
This is a staggeringly poor argument. If MZB only abused children in her own home, that wouldn’t be in the con’s purview and banning her wouldn’t make a safer con-going experience? How many times does Lou have to attempt to disrupt someone’s life or “accidentally” set mobs on someone before they treat it like an issue of prevention rather than mitigation?”
Paging Philip K. Dick…
You now *know* about Lou Antonelli’s problems; you still don’t know about other people around you at conventions, at your workplace, at the mall, or on the streets of your town who have the same problems or worse – but you know that statistically they’re there. Short of withdrawing from all human contact (which would be both difficult and kind of bad for your mental health), what do you do? My answer would be, stay alert wherever you go, but go and live your life without making yourself paranoid about all the things that *might* happen. That way lies madness.
I don’t have any inside information, but I think I can assure you that Sasquan has personnel and procedures in place to deal adequately with any *actual* disturbance that might happen at the convention. I think I can promise that if Lou or anyone else causes such a disturbance, he’ll get the bum’s rush but quick. Sasquan *isn’t* stressing their security precautions because they want the members to come and enjoy a great convention. They kind of *don’t* want members to make themselves all – you know – paranoid – about anyone who makes eye contact with them at the convention.
I’m not trying to make fun of the issues you raised; honestly I’m not. But we all have to find a middle road to walk between vigilance and paranoia in our lives. There are dangers every place we go in this world, but there is joy and wonder too. Everyone reacts to the people and events in our lives as they each think best, but me? I’m not going to let one guy – *whom every eye at the convention will be watching everywhere he goes* – spoil the way I live my life in Fandom anymore that I’ll let the ill-mannered puppies of this world do so.
@ Simon: “The committee has thankfully distanced itself from the, “as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony”, remark,”
I’m glad to see that. Because that created a terrible impression.
Somebody who does crazy things in anger in email or over the phone might do them in person too. I see no reason to ridicule the concern that Antonelli might lack self-control in person as much as he’s lacked it elsewhere.
They are choosing not to follow the specific recommendation, not “violating” it. That’s part of their policy too:
Convention Procedures:
Pre-convention Procedures:
The report is not the final step. David Gerrold’s request presumably falls under “evaluating the totality of the circumstances.”