Kids @ Cons

[dalekboy]

Way back in '91, (or was it '92?) I ran a convention and very deliberately insisted on a panel about being a parent and staying active in fandom. It had two two fan mums on it. Back at that point, I think I knew three people with kids that were still active fans.

There were quite a few more who had basically dropped out for various reasons - time/money constraints, had moved on to other interests, lost interest in fandom in the face of the new little person who needed them, just felt they couldn't do both, etc.

That was why I wanted this panel, because there were people dropping out simply because they didn't think they could do both, be a parent and an active fan. I wanted people to be able to hear from some parents who were still going to cons and clubs, and to be able to pick up some tips, so they could do the same if they wanted to.

What amazed me was the sheer lack of attendance. Especially by women who were talking about having children themselves. Because, to me, it wasn't a subject that was just about keeping yourself in fandom, it was about how to maintain the aspects of your life that you wanted to hang on to in the face of the world altering addition of another person in your life.

I thought this way a decade and a half before I even had kids, because I knew that many people will end up looking after a child at some point. And it'd be a shame to lose them simply because they didn't think they could do the stuff that they enjoyed, and still care for their kid. No-one wins in that scenario.

There are people who say that kids shouldn't be allowed at cons, and I can honestly see their point. Kids can be disruptive, excitable, loud, and annoying. They can run around, bump into people, and wave things about with no regard for the people nearby who might be hit. They can be a huge imposition to those around them who genuinely shouldn't have to put up with it. People have paid to enjoy the convention, they shouldn't have that enjoyment lessened by some out of control child.

Of course there are more than a few adult fans the above paragraph applies to as well. I can think of instances where I have seen supposedly mature adults doing all these things. In some cases at con after con after con.

Shall we stop them coming to cons too? 'Cause I'm sure I can easily list a few names that I'd rather not attend cons any more. People who always fucking yell stuff out from the audience whether it's warranted or not, especially the ones who think they're funny. Who drink too much and then proceed to be completely obnoxious fucking tools for the rest of the night. Panelists that never seem to prepare, or who always seem to talk over the top of their fellow panelists. Con-runners that never try to do a good job, but always aim for average, and con-runners that will step on whomever they please because running cons is not about community but power.

These people seriously lessen my con experience. They lessen it substantially more than any child ever has. (Except perhaps my own, but he basically kept us trapped in our room most of the time, and was pretty delightful to everyone else, so I'm prepared to put up with him - for now!)

But, you know, at the end of the day, if a child is acting up in any way, the first person who is aware of it is usually the parent. In fact, they will often be cringing. They will usually try to sort the situation out in fairly short order, and if they can't, they will take the child and leave. And as annoyed as you may be by the two minutes of a kid annoying you, how about a bit of thought for the poor parent who has to leave the item they wanted to see and continue dealing with the unruly child.

Oh there are some selfish parents. People who will just let their kid do what it wants, won't keep an eye on it, or worse, will expect other people to do so without being asked. But you know, it's not hard to go up to them and ask them to do something about their disruptive child. And if you don't want to be the bad guy, it's usually not hard to find a committee member who can do it for you.

I have Chaired four conventions and been on several committees, but I've never had a situation where I had to ask a parent to take their child and leave. I have, however, had occasion to chastise and threaten with expulsion a couple of adults, and I've had to ask one professional author to leave a con for breaking convention rules that he was well aware of beforehand.

Maybe kids don't belong at cons, but I prefer their behaviour to some of the adults who attend, because at least the children have a legitimate excuse to behave immaturely.

Comments

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

One of the more interesting assumptions in your post - and, by extension, your note on the swancon journal - seems to be that those of us who aren't in favour of young children at cons are somehow in favour of adults acting like idiots. I think, on the whole, you'll probably find us *more* in favour of ejecting them promptly, and barring them from attendance all together following repeat offenses.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

It's poor wording on my part.

The point is that, in regards to perceived benefit to the greater membership, children attending the con and impacting on people's enjoyment by their mere presence is a lesser issue than say, someone who makes a sizeable portion of the membership uncomfortable because they are constantly trying to crack on to them. And not taking no for an answer. Again and again.

I do actually think that there needs to be serious thought given to how to handle troublesome adults. Especially if we manage to significantly increase membership levels, because then problems are more likely to arise.

I do think people need to be given warnings and chances, and when necessary, they need to be barred. It's a matter of making sure there are the checks and balances in place to stop it being abused. That said, sometimes the committee just needs to show some backbone and act.

Worst thing I have seen is a young teenager physically assaulted by an adult (not related to them) for no better reason than the teenager beating them at a game. This happened in front of a room full of people. The committee did nothing. If I'd been on committee for the event, I would have insisted we refund the assailant's money, and then banned them for life.

[indefensiblepos.livejournal.com]

Good man. Wish you were around so this individual: http://terrycat.livejournal.com/296779.html (with relevant LJ entry linked in case you are unaware) could be deservingly perma-banned from Swancon.

Would it be possible to hire you for security details at cons? Maybe that is an answer a con guard who has the role of just ejecting the unruly, disruptive and worse regardless of age. Acutally trainofthoughtyping this is sounding like a better idea by the second. Rather than hoping the average concom member is going to have the nature to do such a thing someone with those talents should be appointed by the rest of the concom specifically for the purpose.

[cassiphone.livejournal.com]

... don't all cons have security officers/teams?

I kind of thought this was standard.

[indefensiblepos.livejournal.com]

Not at Swancon to my knowledge.

Which may well be why this is the great drama it has become.

Can any of the concom confirm/deny the presence of a security team for the control and possible ejection of any of the wide range of offenders mentioned here and elsewhere (from babies to centarians) at this or any previous Swancon?

[indefensiblepos.livejournal.com]

centenarians even.

[tikiwanderer.livejournal.com]

I've seen people with "security" badges at Swancons sometime in the distant past, haven't paid much attention in the last few years to see if security's been allocated as a separate role or if it's just been put under the "these people are committee members, they'll deal with your problems" banner.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for Perth, but over many years we learned over East that it was usually better to get committee to look after security/problems.

See my comment above RE: a threatened strip search by a security team at a con.

[indefensiblepos.livejournal.com]

Is the security team you refer to hired professionals or just a group of conners assigned the role? After all various experiments like Stanford and Milgram show what can happen if you give someone control who has no idea how to handle it.

If they were supposed professionals, I hope they were fired promptly. (Assuming they weren't given an appallingly bad mandate in the first place from the committee.)

If not well then...

Rather than concom being security or even getting another member of the con to do it, actually hiring a professional security guard may be worth considering. Whilst this costs money in an overall cost analysis it wouldnt be significant and just having the uniform strolling the hallways/communal areas would provide a visual sense of security.

Should there be a more hands on need for security the person would be appropriately trained and completely impartial. (No con member letting their friends get away with something they step on others for)

Futhermore, the liability of having to forcibly remove someone in a worst case scenario would be transferred away from the concom. Which works not only in the case of the person being ejected complaining, but also in the case where if someone was assaulted then concom (for any number of reasons) doesnt do anything the victim could accuse the con of not providing a reasonably safe environment.

Also let me finish by saying I think it sucks immensely that such considerations are even thought of by me or anyone else. Unfortunately people suck even more, which is why do.

[prk.livejournal.com]

None of the concoms I've been on have had an official security team or hired professional security.

However there are several members of the local fan community who work in the security industry.

All of the concoms I've been on have involved asking them for advice, and/or calling one of them if a situation has arisen (eg 2005 had someone wander in off the street causing trouble, who needed to be evicted).

The concoms usually have contingencies in place, and/or have discussed in advance how possible situations would be handled. This has resulted in the few issues that have occurred being dealt with quickly and quietly.

prk.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

And quickly and quietly is the ideal. Con Security sometimes does not manage this, because they aren't also running the con. They see their mandate as stopping problems in a quick manner. Con committees see their mandate as running the con as effectively as possible with as little disruption to the members as can managed.

I have seen some great Con Security, but it is far and away in the minority.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Most cons basically have the committee keeping their eyes open. The quick version is that having security teams can cause more problems than they solve, if people get a bit gung-ho. This was a lesson learned over many years.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

There is an issue regarding the person you link to - what they did wasn't at Swancon. That presents a serious problem, because if you're going to start banning people for things they've done outside the con, where do you stop? If someone has been done for shop-lifting, do we not allow them to come to the con?

I'm not trying to trivialise what he did by comparing it to a minor offence, I'm just trying to make the point that it's a complex issue, and it's easy for things to get out of control.

Which leads to the problem with con security - it can go to people's heads. The security can become a bigger problem than any member ever was.

Put it another way, when a female security team drags two people to a room and genuinely threatens to strip search them, not because they think they have stolen anything, but as a way to get information, you've got a problem.

This happened to me and a friend. Fortunately they had picked the worst possible people to try this on, but they didn't know that. My mate and I could have sued the con for the threat alone. We just shrugged it off. But what if we hadn't been the type to shrug it off? What if we had been litigious, or had been traumatised by the experience?

At most cons the committee do security, and that's good enough for me.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I would like to disagree with you. He groomed me and gained my trust at Swancon. He walked around Swancon with a massage oil bottle in his pocket and massaged con-goers at the drop of a hat. He made a lot of people *very* uncomfortable.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I'm well aware of your situation, and it's a horrible one.

What I will say is that if he was making people uncomfortable, then those people needed to say something to the con committee(s). That would allow them to go up to him and say that they've had complaints and so could ask him to stop. If he'd been warned away from such behaviour, he may have been in a lesser position to groom you in the first place.

The committee are busy running cons, it's just not practical to assume they will know that one individual out of 300+ is acting in a way that makes people feel unsafe or uncomfortable if no-one makes the complaint in the first place.

Let me stress, I am not blaming you in any way. However, if other people failed to complain, they have unwittingly helped him by allowing his behaviour to continue unchecked until it's too late, and someone, in this case you, has been hurt.

I studied full body relaxation massage. The reason you've never seen me massage people at cons is that over 30 years I have seen way too many people across Australia who gave massages that I thought crossed the line between massage and groping. For me, I'd rather not give people massages than be potentially thought of as another of the creepy feel-up merchants. The feel-up massagers also tend to gain a group of people who welcome that sort of massage, and will actively and publically ask for one, which further blurs the line for con committees.

I will also state that I have also seen people who give genuine massages, but they do tend to be in the minority.

If you want to know what I would have done if I'd been on committee regarding your situation, write to me directly.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

What you're describing is part of the idea of "Rape Culture", so I agree with you. I realise how difficult this is for committees, I really do.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I figured you'd understand the committee issues. For the record, I think you've dealt with this whole thing quite well.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I completely understand. It's just the way the laws and everything are set up.

My only aim in my discourse with this is to protect other con goers. My ability to go to the con without fear is a bonus.

And, in a pure, selfish, horrible way, I wish he'd be held culpable for something horrible that he's done. But, you know, that's just me raging at the universe, I don't expect anything from the committee cause that's fucking unfair.

Either way, I don't know that my attacker would really have much fun at Swancon, to be honest. He'd be a pariah. I only know of a few people of a certain subset that wouldn't be cold to him. I guess it'd be enough to keep going though.

I have this naive, silly thought in my head that if he was sorry, really sorry for what he did, he wouldn't come to Swancon anymore and just let me go and do what I need to do to have a place in the community and contribute and network and stuff.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I don't know who you are, but I want to kiss you.

Edit: I thought it better not to get too personal here. Sorry Danny.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

It's fine. I preferred your longer too personal reply to some of the supposedly logical and reasoned arguments people have posted.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

That's okay, I figured you would get to see it anyway. :)

I keep getting in trouble for not being logical about this whole thing, I'm noticing. Oh well. *sigh*

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Yes, because you're in such a good emotional place to be logical about stuff. A logical approach is good if you can manage it, but I'd like to see a few of the people who have grumbled at you go through the same experience and be logical.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I think I'm doing pretty well, all considering. I've had no justice for what happened to me, I had to fight for any support, and I'm paying out of pocket for my own recovery, for services I can barely afford.

I'm seriously thinking of going through some hardcore therapy with my psych to prepare me for Swancon. Cause I have way important stuff to do, you know? :( And I'm really, really tired of giving up my happiness for him.

I'm not afraid of him. He can never, ever hurt me again.

Unfortunately my reptile brain and limbic system don't see it that way. :(

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

someone who makes a sizeable portion of the membership uncomfortable because they are constantly trying to crack on to them. And not taking no for an answer. Again and again.

This. A thousand times this. One person carried around massage oil in their pocket, then started massaging unsuspecting con-goers. They are dangerous, yet they're still allowed to go to cons.

I would rather be in a room full of unruly kids than a room full of well-behaved adults and this person in there.

Children are the least of the problem at a lot of these cons.