Similar to what I said in email to Arisia staff ...

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

Dear all,

I am hearing from people, attendees and staff, that this year's Arisia was excellent. That makes me very happy, as conchair, and I encourage each of you to remember what a key role you all had in making the con great. I really appreciate everyone's hard work and incredible efforts on behalf of Arisia.

Unfortunately, not all experiences at con were wholly positive.

On Sunday of convention, it was reported to us that someone on Arisia's security staff was acting in a fashion that violated Arisia's rules and code of conduct. When this came to our attention, the head of Arisia security and the conchair-on-duty responded to the situation and tried to defuse it. They then informed him that his staff status was revoked, and later also revoked his convention membership entirely when he continued to be in violation of Arisia policies. Finally, we had him escorted from the property by the hotel's security.

I am so incredibly sorry to anyone whose convention this impacted.

While there are people behaving badly all over this world, I was hoping that our community lived in a space where that was less likely to happen, and it pains me personally that this behavior came from a member of our staff. I assure you that we are committed to a safe Arisia, and are looking at ways to address this specific incident and the more general challenges in the future, and making sure people understand how to respond to an issue if someone who appears to have authority within the convention is behaving badly. I am confident that we have all done our best under the circumstances, but now this is also an opportunity for us to learn and grow as a group, both as Arisia staffers and as a community in general.

It should be noted that nobody was more deeply shocked than the security staff at a member of our own staff behaving in such an irresponsible and threatening manner. We are certainly very aware of the breach of trust this represents and are taking this very seriously.

Right now, however, we are trying not to make decisions too quickly. We are still receiving information about things that happened during con, and figuring out the overall picture and timeline. If you have something you would like to share or discuss about this issue, please do email me personally (arisia.crystal at gmail.com) or conchair at arisia.org to reach me and my assistant conchairs. It would be my preference that this conversation occur in email, frankly, so that there is one single repository of information when building solutions and addressing concerns. It's hard to track down various comments in multiple forums, etc., and LJ comment emails don't always go through in a timely fashion. I simply cannot promise to keep up with this entry's responses.

Thank you all so, so much. I hope and believe that the majority of our community was unaffected by this unpleasant episode, and I am thrilled to hear how happy most folks have been with Arisia 2011. You make this convention worth the hard work, to me.

Comments

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

I'll admit to being terribly intrigued, but this is probably going to end up as another Arisia mystery that I'll never unravel. In any case, I know nothing about it.

I do have some feedback, but I don't think I'll be sending it in. Frankly, in my long experience even the slightest criticism of Arisia incurs anger, flames, and the perennial response "If you don't like it, why don't you volunteer and see if you can make it better?". I end up getting stressed out, and nobody profits from my experience.

I do feel safe in saying that it was one of the best Arisias I've ever been to...and I've been to them all. Even my one negative experience this year was not that serious.

From my perspective you did a very good job. Some people are crazy, and there's nothing you can do about it. I hope you don't worry too much about this mysterious security incident, whatever it is.

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

I'm really sorry you've had the experience in the past of feeling criticized for giving feedback about our convention. Arisia, as a volunteer organization, does sort of live or die by the actions of our volunteers, and therefore we do sometimes ask people to take on management of the thing they're enthusiastic about. But obviously there's a way of doing so that comes across as encouragement rather than blame ... :(

I don't want to stress you, but if you do want to give feedback, I promise I will read it. I don't promise to take any particular action in response, because at the very least we receive lots of conflicting feedback requests. But I will read it, and I will do my best not to respond negatively.

[ultimatepsi.livejournal.com]

As a volunteer organization, sometime the reason we do things not as well as we'd like is because we simply don't have the staff who are willing and competent to do those things better. However, some things we don't do well we could improve without adding more enthusiastic staff. Sometimes a complaint should be met with, "Thank you for the suggestion and we will pass it on to the person in charge of that."

[londo.livejournal.com]

Is there a better way to phrase "volunteer and do it better?" Because, really, regardless of the subject, or the complainer, or whatever... all of the best things at Arisia, all of the best parts of almost any volunteer-run organization, are put on by people who are passionate about that thing.

So it sounds douchey to say "oh well why don't you do it yourself," because that's a phrase that sounds like it has an unverbalized "smartass" at the end of it, but that might actually be a good idea.

I haven't thought of a good phrase, which is unfortunate, because it's a problem I care about and so by my own rules should volunteer to solve.

[eustaciavye.livejournal.com]

"What you've described is definitely an issue and something we as an organization would like to improve. We'd love to have you on board as a volunteer to make that happen. Contact (so and so) if you're interested and let's work together"

How's that?

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

I think that is still pointed. How about something like this.

"What you've described is (definitely) an issue. (So and so) is in charge of that (area | division). Would you like to get in touch with them to give them your thoughts and see if there is some way you can help out?"

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

The thing is, that's *not* always the appropriate reply. Somebody posted few days ago and mentioned that they'd like to see more hours of a particular event. Someone replied (with total helpful intent) with the strong implication that if they want that, they should get involved, because the person running it (me) was very busy and that that was somehow a factor.

While it's true I was busy, that had nothing to do with my event getting shorted this year, and even if I had a dozen people lining up to cover hours, it wouldn't have mattered because there were no hours to cover. And I'd hate to think people are withholding feedback because they don't want to be hassled.

I think collecting feedback is important and encouraging people to get involved is important, but one should not be required for the other to be acceptable.

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of a time when there was a problem with an event that was basically being short-changed. A friend had worked long and hard to prepare for it. It had been announced in mailings we'd received, but no time was announced for the event at the con. She had to beg and beg and chase people around to find out when and where it was being held, and to try and get some notice posted about it.

When she showed up at the gripe session, she was told (essentially) that if she had a problem, she should volunteer and run it herself. The thing is, that's not always a good response - even if we overlook the fact that it is sometimes (often) code for "shut up". It overlooks two key points: first, that people who work hard to participate in events are not necessarily going to be any good at running those events. And second, that criticism is usually a learning opportunity. For many people, it really isn't easy to make a criticism. But without feedback on problems, how can those problems ever be fixed?

[tk7602.livejournal.com]

unfortunately there are jerks everywhere, even in fandom. you folks did the best you could, and you handled the situation.

everyone makes mistakes, it's how gracefully they are dealt with that matters to me!

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

<--this.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

My only request is that, after you figure out what happened, you post a report here on this community, and in other appropriate places, to explain, in one place, the entire story. Hopefully, including the identity of the accused jerk, if it becomes apparent that he did act as jerkish and abusively as the story goes.

I only heard the vaguest outlines of the story, but, if the accusations are true, I'd want to know who the person was, so that I can take that person's actions into account if I encounter him in the future. Again, until you determine what actually happened, I don't think we need to know who the accused is, but if the person actually DID behave abusively, I think we all DO need to know who he is.

[madfilkentist]

This is the first I've heard of that occurrence. The inevitable downside of accepting volunteers is that not all of them will be good people, or people who are good for the job they've offered to take on. Even having a con run by professionals and paid staff wouldn't prevent the problem; it would just mean the abuse happens for bigger stakes. It sounds as if the problem is being handled properly.

The only security incident I witnessed was a very minor matter, and all the people involved acted responsibly.

[minion12.livejournal.com]

It sounds as though you and your staff acted appropriately and efficiently in dealing with the situation. You will always have people who are going to abuse their authority. Our community is not immune to this though we would like to think it is. I think a report of the incident, once the truth is figured out would be appreciated though I'm not sure about publishing the identity of the people involved. An official statement might keep rumours down.

[muffyjo]

I spent the weekend blissfully unaware of any problems whatsoever and had a wonderful time. Thank you so much for hosting it and working so hard on it.

As for the rest:

I agree with the idea of publishing the incident and more importantly how it was handled and how it would be handled in the future, but I would strongly disagree that the identity of the person be placed on public display on the internet. We are a community, even those of us who misbehave and act with poor judgement. It's important that they learn from the experience and that they have a chance to grow past it over their lifetime. Should their name be directly involved, this kind of forum would brand the scarlet A on them for a very long time and while it may seem a fitting solution, it's a cruel one at best. Public humiliation rarely does more than further radicalize opinions for all involved.

[ron_newman]

I agree with the above. Publish an account of what happened and how it was handled, but not the name of the offender. (I have no idea what actually happened, as this LJ post is the first I heard of any such event.)

[thespian.livejournal.com]

frankly, I think that's a bad tack to take. Consider Geek Soc fallacy #1:

http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

The person in question is an adult, they did something that violated Arisia policy, they were relieved of their duty, they violated it again, and they were escorted from the premises.

We're not talking about 'made a fool of themselves at a party', we're talking about someone who had been entrusted with a bit of power, and misused it. I frankly think the community has a right to know who this is.

A person who has misbehaved enough to be escorted off the property is *only* destructive to the community. Arisia accepts anyone who shows up and buys a membership the first time, but you earn the right to stay by not being a dick. Continuing to protect people who prey on or otherwise victimize people, by not identifying perpetrators promotes Arisia as a place where you can act like a bit of an asshole, and it's ok, because there are no real world consequences. Heck, you can even usually even come back next year, no harm no foul.

If it's truly a community, we owe it to the other 2999 community members to let them know and protect themselves. We have pretty loose institutional memory, and without this sort of thing being recorded and available to members, he can easily do this again in a couple years, again with no consequences.

[ron_newman]

I understand what you're saying, but am uncomfortable with publishing the offender's name on the Internet where it is available not just to Arisia members but to everyone, forever.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

that should have been thought of before he did things that were damaging to Arisia.

Years of Arisia respecting the rights of people who don't respect others has resulted in a reputation where this person felt he was fine in flaunting rules and policies. Part of why we had to move from the Park Plaza was because we had developed a reputation as being a party con, and a place where you could misbehave with few consequences. Security was constantly working to kick out people tagged on. It caused us a massive amount of problems, and could easily have meant an end.

With this year's exponential growth, we need to be a con that does not put up with crap anymore. People whose behaviour is so bad that they need to be escorted off of the property have lost the right of discretion for their foibles. There need to be consequences, and what we can do is make sure that Arisians, and other SF cons, know who has lost the right to be trusted.

(you seem to think of Arisia as being a freestanding convention, but it isn't. Though sadly invisible to a lot of people who have started attending in the last 5 years, who think of it as a ticketed event, Arisia is really intertwined with dozens of other conventions along the east coast, from Montreal down to DC.)

[ron_newman]

Most immediately, someone should tell the Boskone committee who the offender was and what his offence was, just in case he has registered for that con (at the same hotel) next month.

[crazybone.livejournal.com]

As stated in the original message:
We are still receiving information about things that happened during con, and figuring out the overall picture and timeline.

Putting up a names before all the facts are in doesn't strike me as the brightest idea. Also,some of the consequences of this person's action were mentioned already. What seems to currently be under discussion is what further actions (both in this case and in general) need to be taken by Arisia to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Your comments seem to imply no further action is being taken. That is not the case based on my reading of the above post.
In addition, information does not exist in a vacuum. Once it's put out there in a public forum, whoever posted it is in some ways culpable for whatever secondary effects it causes.

[muffyjo]

I think you misunderstand. The people who are directly involved are able to share the details with whomever they want. I think Arisia, as a social entity and business, is not the place for what you're talking about to happen.

If Arisia were investing in legal action against this person, that's a different matter. But I do think this is the incorrect forum for public castigation. The person has been reprimanded and removed from their responsibilities.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

We need to know. All of us need to know. We don't need to know of an groundless accusation, but, if this turns out to be real and accurate, then we all need to know.

All of us have a right to know about dangerous people, in order to protect ourselves. I don't want to know NOW -- but, if, after investigation, this turns out to be true, then you and I and everyone have a RIGHT to know, and Arisia has a responsibility to let us all know.

If the person is a danger to others, we all have a need to know that.

[muffyjo]

I stand by my original statement....If this is something that Arisia plans to bring legal action to, then they can share the name.

If the person is a danger to others, the law should be involved. If it is not enough to bring in the law, you do not have a need to know.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I completely and totally disagree. Societies work with many other factors and systems than law alone: making that distinction loses 95% of the tools that societies have. If "law" is the only tool we have and "capable of being dealt with by law" is the standard by which we decide whether we can take any sort of action, then we lose all other factors by which societies run.

The law is intended to be a LAST resort in the running of societies -- a safety net which is there to deal with the most severe issues. But if we throw out all other tools, then we overload the law, clogging our courts, and sticking us in situations where we're just plain using the wrong tool.

The law may or may not be the right tool here. But, if it's not the right tool, social pressure may be. And even if it IS the right tool, social pressure may be a useful additional tool.

I don't want to live in a society which has no way to deal with problems other than litigation and criminal procedures.

[muffyjo]

The community of people who participate in Arisia have a right to do whatever they feel necessary. The corporation that is Arisia has a responsibility to share information with the community to the full extent of the law. They are a legal entity and responsible as a legal entity.

I have no idea what happened, to whom or any of the details. I'm arguing from a purely theoretical point of view which is to say, one that would apply the same details to you as to your neighbor as to me. I haven't the emotional attachment that is involved with the issue at hand so I do not share your passion and maybe that would sway me.

And what I hear you saying is "don't get the parents involved" as if the law were something more than what it is. The law is exactly that...a way for him to get a fair hearing, a way to be heard by his peers for the wrongs he's done and a means to supplying just retribution. But you seem to want to take that into your own hands. And isn't that how this problem got started in the first place?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I'm not involved in this thing in any way, other than that I know one of the people who was present during the event, and I'm a member of the greater community of geeks in the area. I have no idea who the alleged perpetrator is.

But the law is not what you think it is. The law is a baseline function that allows society to exist on some more-or-less functional level. But it is not a sufficient mechanism to have a functioning society.

Society must also have mechanisms such as social sanction -- which is to say, a way that communities can say, "This is unacceptable behavior. We do not condone this." Even for things that are not illegal.

Nothing that the person is accused of is necessarily illegal, from what I have heard. But the alleged actions ARE unacceptable in any healthy community. And we need to know that. We need to know who the people are who act in predatory manners, so that we can guard against them -- even when their actions are not illegal.

Not all unacceptable actions are illegal.

I don't want a just retribution. I don't want retribution at all. I just want to know who the guy is so that I can make sure not to put him in any position where he can do similar things here. I don't want to take this into my own hands: I want the entire community as a whole to be able to.

And isn't that how this problem got started in the first place?

Not even remotely.

[muffyjo]

And isn't that how this problem got started in the first place?

Not even remotely.

It's my understanding that someone decided they knew what was best and could make the rules up their way. I'm not convinced what you're proposing is all that different.

You may not want retribution, but you will end up with it regardless. There will be a human being whose need to get help and training will not be addressed while their public/private life will be fully impacted in a negative fashion for the rest of their lives. The internet is for always. At least the legal system tries to keep both your needs and that of the accused party in mind. I'm not saying it's a perfect system and I don't think we need to turn this into a discussion of the legal system and all its flaws.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It's my understanding that someone decided they knew what was best and could make the rules up their way.

No, not at all. The story is that a person wearing a security badge went into the Green Room and starting making an ass of himself, in ways that were very scary to people. He was stalking women and being both offensive and scary.

Further, it sounds like he'd done this in previous years, too. And nobody knew, THIS year, because people didn't want to pass along the information that he was a problem.

If there is an abusive person, that person is the problem. Shielding that person isn't helpful. Certainly, I don't want the person's identity given out until it's investigated and confirmed that the person is abusive, but the problem here isn't one of policies, or procedures, or something that can be solved WITHOUT giving the person's name out -- if the story is true, the person is the problem, and publicizing the person's name is the necessary -- and sufficient -- solution. If a person is using their security badge to be an abusive stalker, then not only should that person not have a security badge, but other people should be aware that said person does things like that, so that they can avoid putting that person in positions where he or she CAN do things like that.

Who benefits by NOT doing this? Abusers.

[muffyjo]

If staff need to know the name, then share it with the staff. I simply disagree that it needs to be put on the internet like a scarlet A unless you intend to make sure they are getting professional help as well.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

We have almost opposite opinions about the appropriate actions here. To me, it's absolutely not my place to comment on whether a stranger, or even an acquaintance, ought to get professional help. But it is not only my place but my duty to protect my community from a dangerous individual. And my community is larger than just Arisia - it includes other cons including ones that are too new for me to know about, and also individuals who are throwing parties. Your argument is that the identity of a potentially dangerous person should be restricted to people on a need-to-know basis.

Me too.

I just think that EVERYBODY who might encounter a dangerous person needs to know.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Certainly, the identity of the person shouldn't be published until and unless it is determined that said person actually DID the things that said person is accused of.

However, if the person DID do those things, then the rest of us need to know that. It's not a question of public humiliation. It's a question of everybody else not putting the person in a position where he can do the same thing again.

If I'm doing stuff at Arisia next year, or Dragon*Con, or AnimeBoston, or at Burning Man, or at a steampunk event, or getting people to work the door at a nightclub, and I have a chance to put this person in a position of authority, I need to know this. It's not fair to me, or to anybody else in the community, to put people in the position where they are putting unqualified people in positions of power, because nobody was willing to let them know that the people were unqualified.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

*exactly*. thank you.

Something that struck me about the recent shooting in Arizona was that there were dozens of complaints about the alleged shooter beforehand; classmates who had been concerned he'd show up with a gun, professors who had discussed him between themselves but been unable to do anything about the situation because they weren't *allowed* to intervene, he was turned down to by the ammo clip at one Walmart, so he went to another because they weren't allowed to share that information, etc.

That's of course an *extreme* example. But the information was held by people who, because they didn't share it by personal choice or prevention, there was tragedy.

Several years ago there was an attendee at Arisia who, for several years, had been groping rather young female attendees, and getting away with it. Lots of people kind of knew who he was, no one really said anything. He was also kicked out of the con, and he sued to get back in. I don't know if he attended this year, but I do know he was allowed to return if he chose to.

I don't know the person's name. I heard something was happening through rumour. I'm certainly not a potential victim of his, but I also can't keep an eye on him if I see him near potential victims, because it was kept hushed.

In this way, when we keep the names of people who have violated community standards away from the community, the message we send is 'it's ok to behave this way. Arisia will keep your little secret.'

As an Arisia attendee for 20 years as of this year, that worries me a lot.

[cogitationitis.livejournal.com]

Just because a name isn't public on the internet doesn't mean it's not known. However, I think Arisia has no care to be sued for defamation (again). I doubt the name of the evil-doer will be posted here. Nevertheless, I expect the upper-level staff knows that name quite well.

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

Was he the one who kept sneaking "I am being persecuted by the ConCom" flyers into the con even after he'd been banned? Those lengthy, ranting, incoherent diatribes? That was more like 17 years ago. Maybe it was a different person.

What a loon!

[thespian.livejournal.com]

this happened at the Hyatt, if I recall.

[ron_newman]

A little googling and link-following brought me to this and this and this and finally this.

Apparently he's been around for 20+ years and was expelled from Readercon in 2008. (Did he sue them too?)

Edit: this too.

Final edit, just in case all of the links somehow disappear: they refer to one Aaron Agassi, someone I haven't met (to my knowledge), and now hope never to meet.

[muffyjo]

This.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Why don't we blacklist people? Aren't there situations in which we should? I am precisely arguing that, if the situation merits it, that said person SHOULD be blacklisted so that he can't ruin this con, or other cons, for other people.

There is no way that the policy was at fault here; there's nothing that anybody else could have done differently -- except not allowing this specific person to be put in a situation where they could do this. The process wasn't the problem, the policy wasn't the problem, the ways of dealing it weren't the problem. The problem was SOLELY the specific individual.

The only policy and process that could have been more useful would be a process in which this person could have been previously spotted as a problem, and that information could have been passed along to other people who needed to know it -- that is, a blacklist.

[ron_newman]

but there's a difference between having a private blacklist (one shared among the people who run and staff Arisia, current and future, and perhaps passed on to Boskone and Readercon) and a public blacklist (one published on the Internet). A private blacklist would be sufficient to deal with this problem.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No, it wouldn't. If this person is a danger, then this person is a danger to not only Arisia and Boskone, but also to Vericon, AnimeBoston, PiCon, PAX, any party announced on Suspects, bugermunches, Diesel get-togethers, and EVERYTHING. Who needs to know? Everyone who might hold parties or cons or need to make decisions about them. In other words, everybody.