Don't forget to reserve a room at the Delta Hunt Valley hotel. We
negotiated a special rate, but it expires October 24. Use the special reservation link found on our website: https://chessiecon.org/hotel.html
I don't expect the Con Police to expel the entire membership,
including themselves, for doing what people always do, but such
badly-worded rules can be used as an excuse to harass or expel
someone whom someone on a con committee doesn't like.
On 9/30/22 11:52 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Don't forget to reserve a room at the Delta Hunt Valley hotel. We
negotiated a special rate, but it expires October 24. Use the special
reservation link found on our website: https://chessiecon.org/hotel.html
A short note on Chessiecon's code of conduct:
https://www.chessiecon.org/code.html
I'm not planning to attend; this is just part of my habit of reviewing
con policies.
There are worse ones than Chessiecon's. Just one item seriously concerns me:
Discrimination against any convention member based on
irrelevant characteristics will not be tolerated and
is a violation of the code of conduct. Such irrelevant
characteristics include but are not limited to: gender,
race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or physical/mental disability.
On a personal, social level, it's generally assumed that people can discriminate for any reasons they consider relevant.
A lot of people
like to hang around with "their own kind," whether that's based on
physical appearance, ethnicity, sex, religion, or whatever.
To discriminate is to differentiate, and often is used to indicate
preference for one category over another. There are many cases where
most people agree it's wrong. Some are marginal; can a dealer at the con legitimately refuse to sell sacred items to someone who doesn't respect
their religion?
But on the personal level, everyone discriminates, and it's considered acceptable.
Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and
discrimination on any of those grounds is considered unacceptable.
This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see an issue here.
On 2022-10-01, Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
There are worse ones than Chessiecon's. Just one item seriously concerns me: >>
Discrimination against any convention member based on
irrelevant characteristics will not be tolerated and
is a violation of the code of conduct. Such irrelevant
characteristics include but are not limited to: gender,
race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or physical/mental disability.
On a personal, social level, it's generally assumed that people can
discriminate for any reasons they consider relevant.
No, it's not 'generally assumed' and in many places it could be illegal.
The catch-all 'not limited to' is there to cover other sorts of assholery. Yes it could be used to exclude anyone the concom doesn't like. There is quite possibly another rule that makes that more explicit.
But on the personal level, everyone discriminates, and it's considered
acceptable.
Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics and discrimination on any of those grounds is considered unacceptable. This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see an issue here.
Bernard Peek <b...@gamma.shrdlu.com> wrote:
Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics andDiscrimination on any of those grounds is illegal in public
discrimination on any of those grounds is considered unacceptable.
This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see an issue here.
accomodations. For instance if you're running a store (ObUK: a shop),
and don't allow people of the "wrong" race in. But in other contexts
it's perfectly okay. For instance for a woman staying in the con
hotel to offer crash space, but only to another women, not to a man.
I don't think any con should object to this discrimination.
On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:53:28 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch
wrote:
Bernard Peek <b...@gamma.shrdlu.com> wrote:
Sometimes. The law defines protected characteristics andDiscrimination on any of those grounds is illegal in public
discrimination on any of those grounds is considered
unacceptable. This rule just makes it explicit. I don't see
an issue here.
accomodations. For instance if you're running a store (ObUK: a
shop), and don't allow people of the "wrong" race in. But in
other contexts it's perfectly okay. For instance for a woman
staying in the con hotel to offer crash space, but only to
another women, not to a man. I don't think any con should
object to this discrimination.
"Public accommodation" is the key point. Private clubs and
societies *can* discriminate. Cons have memberships, and a con
*could* presumably limit who it sold memberships to. The only SF
related case I can think of is the 1988 Boskone. This was
immediately after the 'Boskone from Hell', and NESFA decided to
scale back. They moved it from Boston to Springfield, and
granted memberships only to people who'd been to multiple
earlier Boskones. The goal was to get rid of the large number of
college students who came to the Hynes for room parties and
booze. It worked, and Arisia appeared in 1990 as a direct
reaction.
I'm not sure what separates 'Public accommodation' from 'private
club'. Selling memberships at the door seems pretty close to
public, though cons do have blacklists of people not to be
admitted. At the other end, a joining process that takes
interviews, balloting, and months of time to complete is pretty
private.
Selling memberships at the door seems pretty close to public, though
cons do have blacklists of people not to be admitted.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 351 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:41:48 |
| Calls: | 7,634 |
| Files: | 12,797 |
| Messages: | 5,689,494 |