Simon Bradshaw

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.)

I'll be doing a detailed post on EightSquaredCon's blog soon regarding panel parity, but the gender breakdown of our 73 panels looks like this:



This was achieved in the main part by having 190 people on programme - thats one quarter of our pre-registered membership - of whom 46% were women.

darth_hamster is perusing the draft Eastercon programme:

"Angry Robots Singing? What on earth is that about?"

(I peer more closely)

"That will be Angry Robot Signing dear..."

In all fairness, it was in a fairly small font!

If you read nwhyte's journal (and is there anyone left who doesn't?) you'll be aware from this post that Irish fan slovobooks has been banned at short notice from attending Octocon this weekend, seemingly on the basis of unspecified conduct or comments relating to his criticism of the current committee.

Can they do this? More importantly, should they?

( The legal position... )

( ...and the practical con-running one )

Now, all the above is in legal terms based on my professional knowledge of English law. But I believe that in many jurisdictions the legal position is broadly similar, and the moral and practical considerations ought to apply everywhere. In the Octocon case, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the committee are being very thin-skinned and grossly over-reacting. As other people have pointed out, the best response to complaints that you are running a poor convention is to demonstrate that you can run a good one. And by the accounts of several of my friends who are regular Octocon attendees, it does sound as if there are at least some grounds for criticising the way it's been run over the last few years. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of what slovobooks has said or done, the Octocon committee's ill-judged and excessive reaction is only going to damage Octocon's reputation still further. And this is a point that all con-runners should remember: reputation is the currency of fandom, and it takes years to build but only seconds to lose.

EDIT I am very pleased to see that there has been an amicable resolution.

Getting two of us from Edinburgh to Walsall for Novacon:

By air: circa £120 (air fares and taxis), 3 hrs.

By car: circa £120 (petrol and running costs), 6 hrs.

By rail: circa £200, 6 hrs.

And that is booking ten weeks in advance.

According to the Guardian's carbon-offset website, flying would generate 240 kg of carbon dioxide, which would cost £1.77 to offset. Driving would generate 210 kg, costing £1.58 to offset. No data for trains.

EDIT: Or we could give the GoH a lift and split the costs!