Idea: how to ensure awareness of Codes of Conduct

[major_clanger]

Loncon 3 seemed to do quite well with its Code of Conduct; it was available on the website and reprinted in the front of the convention pocket guide. As far as I'm aware, there were only a handful of incidents reported to the convention staff that required it to be applied.

However, I've seen discussion about the convention that suggests that some attendees still did not understand what the CoC was meant to set out in terms of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. I've been giving some thought to how we might ensure that everyone at a convention is clearly and unambiguously aware of the CoC, and more importantly, can be proven to be aware of it.

At Loncon 3, registration involved being handed your badge. How about if instead we handed over a sealed envelope containing the badge, printed up as below. (The box with my name in is an indication that there would be a sticker identifying whose badge was inside).



For this to work, you have to plan this from the outset, and ensure that:

- for online memberships, anyone joining has to click on a 'I agree with the Code of Conduct' tick-box in order to join;

- for direct sales, there is a 'sign to agree our Code of Conduct' box on the membership form.

This makes it absolutely clear both when you join the convention and when you pick up your badge that the Code of Conduct applies to you.

I've put in the refund option because I think this strengthens the convention's position: it allows someone a final chance to say 'no, I don't want to be bound by this'. Of course, as it excludes what we lawyers call consequential expenses (e.g. travel and hotel) I doubt that many people will exercise it, but the fact that it's there helps avoid arguments about the validity of the 'open the envelope and you're agreeing' notice.

(For those interested in the legality: this isn't a shrink-wrap licence situation, as the notice on the envelope is just confirming what members have expressly signed up to when they joined. Rather, it's actually adding an exit clause to the membership contract.)

Comments

[teaparty.net (from livejournal.com)]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so my opinion probably isn't important. That said, I can see merit in this proposal; but I think vicarage above makes valid points, too, which aren't entirely assuaged by davidwake and uitlander's excellent suggestions.

My first question is whether or not you're solving a non-problem. Were there any instances of people at LonCon claiming that the CoC didn't apply to them, and if so, how many and (if you know) on what grounds?

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Yes. That.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

I understand that one person, who was given a final warning for using racially offensive language in a panel (he was apparently in the audience, not a panel member) tried to dispute that the CoC applied to him because of his First Amendment rights. He was put straight on this very quickly.

The issue I am more concerned with arises from complaints during and after the convention that were not so much about serious abuse but rather about casually offensive behaviour. In several instances, the complainants said that they did not want the people involved sanctioned as such, they wanted there to be awareness that the CoC dealt with such behaviour in the first place.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I do wish I'd been present at the point where someone pointed out that the words "Loncon" contained within them an implied statement about the applicability of the First Amendment...