On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 7:05 PM John Scully <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are large parts of this that we can all easily agree on - the two > extremes. > First is anything that is an actual crime. Assault of any kind, violence, > threats of violence etc. If anything like that occurs then the police > should be involved. If someone reports the incident to admins, and no one > has yet called the police then that should be done, but anyone can call the > police. > Unfortunately, some might disagree with this first point. If there is a victim then their desire to pursue legal remedy and law enforcement involvement should likely be considered. There are some instances where the personal cost of trying to lodge a report to the police are too high to make that desirable for the victim, but it still may be prudent for the event to take action in some of those circumstances. As an example, one attendee corners another in an area with no witnesses or cameras present. They proceed to kiss and touch the person even though such interactions have not been affirmatively consented to. The person manages to escape the situation and wants the event to take some kind of action (as defined by the CoC, could range from monitoring to a warning to expulsion or other) but they do not want to try to file a police report because they know there is no physical evidence and so it would only be one person's word against the other and they realize that the police will also directly confront the offender about the incident which could bring additional harm back on the victim. If they know that the only way to report the incident to the event would be to also report it to the police they may be less inclined to report it at all. Now...the most difficult area is what I would call "social injustice" > rules. Some of the suggested CoC sent to us have long enumerated sets of > ways you should not offend people. > Problem with that is that on the one hand you are listing a lot of > things that only a very small subset of people will care about, and on the > other can never list them all. There is a reason that "murder" is against > the law, not "murder by shooting, murder by stabbing, murder by manual > strangulation, murder by garrote, murder by poison". > If you list "things that are bad" you sort of imply that things not on the > list are not bad. And you will continually be asked to add to the list. > The OUSA CoC (just used for convenience) says that harassment includes but is not limited to: * offensive communication related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, and age. * use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary language. >From my point of view, this is like saying that "murder, stealing, and assault" are against the law. It doesn't go into details about what different specific words are offensive, but outlines broad areas of language that are not tolerated. However, I want to draw attention to one part of your statement that seems troublesome to me. I don't think it is a "problem" that the list will include "a lot of things that only a very small subset of people will care about." Part of the point of a CoC is to make it clear that people in what are often marginalized groups feel comfortable attending because they know what will and won't be tolerated. If the majority of the attendees of an event are caucasion that does not mean that racist language is acceptable because "only a very small subset of people" are targeted by it. It's also not really a problem that people might ask to add things to the list or otherwise amend it, since the event organizers get to decide how they want to handle those requests. As with all parts of a CoC, it is up to the convention organizers to decide what should be included, how it should be implemented, and to publish it so that potential attendees can make informed decisions based on what they can expect at the event. If the Code of Conduct is too permissive, they know not to go. If the Code of Conduct is not permissive enough, they know not to go. Or, in either case, they can take their issues up with the organizers and lobby for changes. Again, it goes back to the organizers to decide what to include or not. The current method people use for making decisions about attending or not attending an event without a CoC is to rely on "whisper networks", word of mouth, or just their gut instincts as to how things will be handled. To be specific, one person asked that the CoC include "Mis-gendering > someone, even accidently is tantamount to physical violence. Therefore > please refrain from any use of gender pronouns". > That is one of the things I was referring to when I stated that I did not > want to be the "PC Police", or have an "overly PC CoC", which people took > real offence to. > Again, it is up to the organizers to decide what to include in the CoC. If this seems out of bounds to you, then you don't include it. I don't think having things you do not want to include in a CoC is cause to totally dismiss the idea of having one at all. Second issue I had was several people asking for people to be able to > anonymously report others for bad behavior at our convention or other > events "So that we can take action". But without specifying what that > action should be. I took that to mean blacklisting, because I honestly do > not know what other action you can take at a future event based on a report > of something from a past event. > Oddly, some of these pointed to the OUSA CoC as an example. But it does > NOT say "anonymously". It says your identity can be kept confidential, > which is entirely different. > I asked straight up "Are you saying that we should allow anonymous reports > of bad behavior at other events as well as at our own, and based solely on > those reports blacklist people?". I never got a real reply to that, so I > am not sure that is what they meant, but that was the request. And that > was from several different people separated by months. > I agree, there may have been some confusion between "anonymously" and "confidentially". It is possible that they meant that, from the point of view of the offender, the complaint would be anonymous, even though the person that received the report and possibly some other event organizers would be aware of the identity of the reporter. >From the conversations I am aware of, I have not seen any evidence that someone asked you for "anonymous reports of bad behavior [to result in] blacklisting people." I agree, that seems a little over the top. However, any report would follow the guidance of the Code of Conduct which could specify if or how the event should handle complaints from other events. I would like to see some real discussion here of those several general > categories: > 1) Should incidents at other events be reported through these same > channels as real time incidents at our events? > That is up to the event organizers to decide when they are writing the Code of Conduct. > 2) Are we talking about blacklisting people? If so, based on what > exactly? Note that I have no issue with that other than the opportunity for > abuse of it. I mean - if Person X is disruptive and a problem (much less > guilty of criminal conduct) at multiple events, why would anyone want them > at future events? > That is up to the event organizers to decide. A permanent ban is a pretty stiff penalty, so it would likely be reserved for repeated or extreme offenses. Coordinating a multi-event backlist would be up to the organizers of the different events. 3) Do we want to be acting as micro-managers of what is and is not > allowable etiquette, or just broad statements that boil down to "don't be a > jerk" (not in those words). Remember - this is specifically NOT about > harassment, assault or any other serious offence. Where/how do we draw that > line? > Again, this is up to event organizers to decide. > 4) What reporting mechanisms should there be? Stated escalation path? > i.e. you report it to someone, they say "eh...not going to get involved". > Should there be a next level contact? That is what I am planning. > This is up to the event organizers to decide. I personally would recommend taking a report for any incident raised to someone identified to accept reports, that way there is a record of it. If the person raising the issue is not happy with the outcome then it would be preferable for some kind of appeal process, but that may depend on the scale of the event and the details of the CoC. > I also think any non-direct contact method such as email needs a strong > disclaimer that it should not be used to report anything urgent. i.e. > "'emails may not be seen for hours. If you are reporting something that > requires immediate action please report it in person or by calling xxx". > This would be a good thing to include in your CoC and other convention materials. So, from my point of view, a lot of your questions come down to the decisions the convention organizers get to make, and publishing the CoC is what informs the attendees as to what they can expect. An effective CoC does also rely on a good faith implementation of the process, so it does have to be taken seriously by the organizers and volunteers who may be executing the policies. Dismissing a complaint, for example, just because it would not have bothered you would violate the trust of the person making the report. In that type of situation it comes back to the community to do what they can to mitigate the situation in the future, by using some of the methods mentioned above. malachi >
