Violations and Ruminations
Apr. 8th, 2015 03:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyMost of Minicon this year was grand fun. As the Chair of the Code of Conduct Committee, I had several things that I had to deal with, and learned several really useful things. I also ended up saying "giant inflatable penis" more times than any person should have to. But that's not what I want to talk about.
The Consuite at Minicon is comprised of some interconnected rooms. This year, they took all the beds out, and the rooms had either comfy furniture to sit in, or tables with food and drink. I'm using consuite a little loosely, since I'm including the bar area. The Dead Dog Party was held, as is traditional, in the consuite. Somewhere fairly early in the evening, Ann talked to me about a problem with Ken Konkol. Ken's been known to be a problem for, oh, forty years, in a variety of ways. His most recent exploit was being arrested for refusing to vacate an hotel room in Florida. That was last November. This is not a man who has learned better. According to Ann, who had spoken to another long-time Mnstfer, Ken had showed up assuming that he would be allowed to stay in this other person's house. This other person has had a bad experience with Ken overstaying his welcome, and refused. On Sunday, once again, Ken insisted that of course he was going to stay at this friend's house, since he had no place to go. Ann offered to explain to Ken in no uncertain terms that this was not going to happen, since the other person felt like he was not getting through. Ann did so, at which point Ken asked to stay in the consuite.
Now, staying overnight in the consuite is a thing which happens from time to time. It is the prerogative of the hosts, the people running the consuite and bar, and it is assumed that they will use good judgment, which they always do. The people running consuite and bar often end up sleeping in those rooms, as well, since their job is never-ending, and it's useful to have as short a commute as possible. Ann told Ken no, and in no uncertain terms. She had concerns about the fact that there was evidently a charge against him for trashing an hotel room, possibly related to his arrest, and generally didn't feel that his lack of planning constituted a reasonable emergency on the part of the con.
I wanted to talk to Ken up front, make him say what his plans for vacating were, and make him stick to them. I thought that a proactive approach was more likely to circumvent his extremely probable tactic of just hanging around until they closed the suite, probably around four or five in the morning, and then pleading that he couldn't go because he had no place to go and no way to get there. A plea that looks especially good because he's using a walker these days and really does look frail. I thought to do this under the guise of being helpful. "Do you need help calling a cab?" sort of deal. I was assured that Joel had it all under control, and decided that I could just stand down. A while later, I noticed that Ken was no longer in evidence, assumed that it had all blown over, and stopped worrying.
Around three in the morning, my sweetie Ctein and I ended up in one of the smaller rooms with a couch, talking, like we do. As these things will, late at night, we ended up having a two hour, wide ranging, very private conversation. There was no one in the room, the crowd was quite thin, we weren't using space other people needed. When someone wandered in to use the rest room or see if someone they wanted to talk to was there, we suspended the really personal stuff. In case you haven't done the convention thing, this is actually a pretty normal interaction. People are always wandering off to slightly secluded spots to talk, neck, or what have you. Somewhere around five in the morning, Joel informed us that he was going to bed and they were closing up the rooms. Ctein and I left, feeling a bit smug about having closed down the convention.
Monday was the traditional "fish fest", a sushi lunch at Sakura, followed by the less venerated but still very traditional ice cream trip to Pump House Creamery. I had much good sushi, a beer, and was feeling utterly charitable with the entire world. And then I got a call. From Ann. She said that Ken Konkol had decided to hide in the closet of the room where Ctein and I were talking so as to avoid getting thrown out. For the entire time we had been talking, sometimes about quite personal information, he was in the closet. When he was found, he had made a little nest of pillows and blankets and was reading. Joel had thought to look in the closet because he hadn't seen Ken leave, and figured he must be there somewhere. I told Ann I had to hang up, I felt sick to my stomach. I did not, in fact, throw up, but I was hugely, massively upset. Trying to remember what we had talked about, what other people we had discussed in frank fashion, what confidences had been violated. I was toweringly angry.
When we got to the ice cream place, I pulled Ctein aside, and told him. He went through roughly the same reactions. It felt incredibly violating. It's not a physical violation, but it is still a huge invasion of one's personal space. And it may be a minor thing, but it also destroyed that slightly smug sense of accomplishment about having closed down the con. After a very brief discussion, we went and told _everybody_. Loudly. And everyone had the same sorts of reactions we did. They were appalled and horrified, and sympathetic. It was so very nice to have all my friends be so very much on my side. It felt validating and helped keep me from spinning out of control. Ctein reports the same thing.
That night was the Desiccated Dodo Party at Scott's. This is also a Minicon tradition. I walked in the door, and there was Ken. I took a deep breath and decided that I did not wish to make a scene. While it felt awful to be in the same room with him, I didn't want to export the damage to my friends. I quick texted Ctein to warn him, and then proceeded to ignore Ken. I socialized cheerfully with my friends and told anyone who hadn't heard yet about what had happened the previous night. Everyone was appalled and sympathetic. I got into a couple of games of Zar, and had a quite good time, although I did cuss in front of the teenager. Which he thought was funny, and his mother didn't seem to be too upset with. Something about Zar makes me say terrible things. In between the first and the second game, Cally said that she overheard Ken say that he was disappointed that he hadn't gotten to play a game with several people yet, and my name was on the list. I was...gobsmacked, I guess. It sounds bad, but you should know that I have never, not once in all my life, shared a game with Ken. The expectation that he could game with me? I am flabbergasted. What is it about abusers that makes them want to continue to contact their victims, get closer to them? What is it?
Zar over, I was in the kitchen. Laura, Dean, DDB, Ctein, Doug, Scott, and probably other people were there. I don't really remember. Ken came to the kitchen door, and I lost my temper. I don't think he was speaking to me, but I said, "Go away and never speak to me again." He _advanced_. He walked towards me. He said that he was just here to thank our gracious hostess, and pointed to Laura. Someone replied that Laura was not, in fact the hostess. I told him go get out of my face. He asked me why. I yelled that I didn't need to explain, he needed to leave me the fuck alone. He insisted that I did need to explain. And he kept on _advancing_. By this time, I have completely lost my shit. I'm screaming at the top of my lungs, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the words were fuck, and the rest involved telling him to go away. Eventually, he was made to leave. I really don't remember that part too well. I did see Ctein visibly restrain himself, and I'm grateful. Actually breaking Ken's fingers, or whatever else seemed appropriate, would have been difficult to explain to the police. Ann Totusek stood in the doorway to prevent him from coming in. I burst into tears and cried on Dean's shoulder. It was the closest one, I think.
Because the context was well known, everyone was instantly on my side. There was no recrimination at all, only sympathy. Everyone understood why I had lost it, and was completely sympathetic. It helps, of course, that pretty much no one likes Ken. But I think a much more important piece of it was that the abuse of the previous night was known and understood, and so my behavior had context.
There followed a discussion in which I, hilariously, provided technical advice about how to make Ken go away. It was decided that asking the host of the party to remove Ken was the correct procedure to follow. This is in exact compliance with our current anti-harassment policy. Scott, as host, asked for time to consult with Irene, his wife and co-host. That took very little time, but I don't think Irene knew the context and absolutely she needed to be consulted. Also in accordance with our policy, the hosts asked a Board member, in this case Ann, to actually do the evicting. Which she did. And for which I was so very grateful. There was some talk about further bans of various natures, a one year ban from Minicon, maybe a longer one. Ctein brought up the issue that in smaller venues, such as Fallcon, he would not be comfortable with Ken there and there would be a good chance of unpleasant drama if they had to interact. I pointed out that Mnstf meetings are pretty damn small, as well. I pointed out that all of this is stuff that has to be handled at the Board level, that we didn't have a quorum of Board members, and even if we did, I wasn't really ready to deal with all this shit, even as a complainant. As the victim, I cannot actually vote on the outcome, but I can advocate for myself when the time comes. But the time was not now, and what with Ken living out of town, there wasn't any reason to do anything before the next scheduled Board meeting.
Tuesday, I got a call from Ann. Evidently, Ken reached out to Ann and wanted to make things right. He's going to see a counselor through the VA and she was talking about wanting to provide the counselor with properly anonymized information so that he can discuss it with Ken, and I lost my temper. Because really, Ken is not my problem and what I really want is for him to die in a fire, right now. It's been less than 24 hours. And I am frothingly angry, still damaged, and trying to involve me in his rehabilitation is just not on. I have no charitable feelings towards him, and should not be asked to. Ann also said something about wanting to be sure that Mnstf wasn't perceived as an organization that just casually bans people who one of the Board members do not like, and I agree that we don't want to do that, but I cannot cannot cannot talk about this right now. And I am still upset that she tried to do so. I know that she had good intentions. But framing Ken's rehab as a good thing for me makes no sense at all. It does absolutely nothing for me. And right now, if Ken wants to apologize to me, I am not having any, will not listen, and if he calls me I will scream at him until he hangs up the phone. Not having any. Which is, you understand, why I don't get to vote on the issue of what Mnstf should do to Ken. Because genuinely not judicial, here.
The Consuite at Minicon is comprised of some interconnected rooms. This year, they took all the beds out, and the rooms had either comfy furniture to sit in, or tables with food and drink. I'm using consuite a little loosely, since I'm including the bar area. The Dead Dog Party was held, as is traditional, in the consuite. Somewhere fairly early in the evening, Ann talked to me about a problem with Ken Konkol. Ken's been known to be a problem for, oh, forty years, in a variety of ways. His most recent exploit was being arrested for refusing to vacate an hotel room in Florida. That was last November. This is not a man who has learned better. According to Ann, who had spoken to another long-time Mnstfer, Ken had showed up assuming that he would be allowed to stay in this other person's house. This other person has had a bad experience with Ken overstaying his welcome, and refused. On Sunday, once again, Ken insisted that of course he was going to stay at this friend's house, since he had no place to go. Ann offered to explain to Ken in no uncertain terms that this was not going to happen, since the other person felt like he was not getting through. Ann did so, at which point Ken asked to stay in the consuite.
Now, staying overnight in the consuite is a thing which happens from time to time. It is the prerogative of the hosts, the people running the consuite and bar, and it is assumed that they will use good judgment, which they always do. The people running consuite and bar often end up sleeping in those rooms, as well, since their job is never-ending, and it's useful to have as short a commute as possible. Ann told Ken no, and in no uncertain terms. She had concerns about the fact that there was evidently a charge against him for trashing an hotel room, possibly related to his arrest, and generally didn't feel that his lack of planning constituted a reasonable emergency on the part of the con.
I wanted to talk to Ken up front, make him say what his plans for vacating were, and make him stick to them. I thought that a proactive approach was more likely to circumvent his extremely probable tactic of just hanging around until they closed the suite, probably around four or five in the morning, and then pleading that he couldn't go because he had no place to go and no way to get there. A plea that looks especially good because he's using a walker these days and really does look frail. I thought to do this under the guise of being helpful. "Do you need help calling a cab?" sort of deal. I was assured that Joel had it all under control, and decided that I could just stand down. A while later, I noticed that Ken was no longer in evidence, assumed that it had all blown over, and stopped worrying.
Around three in the morning, my sweetie Ctein and I ended up in one of the smaller rooms with a couch, talking, like we do. As these things will, late at night, we ended up having a two hour, wide ranging, very private conversation. There was no one in the room, the crowd was quite thin, we weren't using space other people needed. When someone wandered in to use the rest room or see if someone they wanted to talk to was there, we suspended the really personal stuff. In case you haven't done the convention thing, this is actually a pretty normal interaction. People are always wandering off to slightly secluded spots to talk, neck, or what have you. Somewhere around five in the morning, Joel informed us that he was going to bed and they were closing up the rooms. Ctein and I left, feeling a bit smug about having closed down the convention.
Monday was the traditional "fish fest", a sushi lunch at Sakura, followed by the less venerated but still very traditional ice cream trip to Pump House Creamery. I had much good sushi, a beer, and was feeling utterly charitable with the entire world. And then I got a call. From Ann. She said that Ken Konkol had decided to hide in the closet of the room where Ctein and I were talking so as to avoid getting thrown out. For the entire time we had been talking, sometimes about quite personal information, he was in the closet. When he was found, he had made a little nest of pillows and blankets and was reading. Joel had thought to look in the closet because he hadn't seen Ken leave, and figured he must be there somewhere. I told Ann I had to hang up, I felt sick to my stomach. I did not, in fact, throw up, but I was hugely, massively upset. Trying to remember what we had talked about, what other people we had discussed in frank fashion, what confidences had been violated. I was toweringly angry.
When we got to the ice cream place, I pulled Ctein aside, and told him. He went through roughly the same reactions. It felt incredibly violating. It's not a physical violation, but it is still a huge invasion of one's personal space. And it may be a minor thing, but it also destroyed that slightly smug sense of accomplishment about having closed down the con. After a very brief discussion, we went and told _everybody_. Loudly. And everyone had the same sorts of reactions we did. They were appalled and horrified, and sympathetic. It was so very nice to have all my friends be so very much on my side. It felt validating and helped keep me from spinning out of control. Ctein reports the same thing.
That night was the Desiccated Dodo Party at Scott's. This is also a Minicon tradition. I walked in the door, and there was Ken. I took a deep breath and decided that I did not wish to make a scene. While it felt awful to be in the same room with him, I didn't want to export the damage to my friends. I quick texted Ctein to warn him, and then proceeded to ignore Ken. I socialized cheerfully with my friends and told anyone who hadn't heard yet about what had happened the previous night. Everyone was appalled and sympathetic. I got into a couple of games of Zar, and had a quite good time, although I did cuss in front of the teenager. Which he thought was funny, and his mother didn't seem to be too upset with. Something about Zar makes me say terrible things. In between the first and the second game, Cally said that she overheard Ken say that he was disappointed that he hadn't gotten to play a game with several people yet, and my name was on the list. I was...gobsmacked, I guess. It sounds bad, but you should know that I have never, not once in all my life, shared a game with Ken. The expectation that he could game with me? I am flabbergasted. What is it about abusers that makes them want to continue to contact their victims, get closer to them? What is it?
Zar over, I was in the kitchen. Laura, Dean, DDB, Ctein, Doug, Scott, and probably other people were there. I don't really remember. Ken came to the kitchen door, and I lost my temper. I don't think he was speaking to me, but I said, "Go away and never speak to me again." He _advanced_. He walked towards me. He said that he was just here to thank our gracious hostess, and pointed to Laura. Someone replied that Laura was not, in fact the hostess. I told him go get out of my face. He asked me why. I yelled that I didn't need to explain, he needed to leave me the fuck alone. He insisted that I did need to explain. And he kept on _advancing_. By this time, I have completely lost my shit. I'm screaming at the top of my lungs, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the words were fuck, and the rest involved telling him to go away. Eventually, he was made to leave. I really don't remember that part too well. I did see Ctein visibly restrain himself, and I'm grateful. Actually breaking Ken's fingers, or whatever else seemed appropriate, would have been difficult to explain to the police. Ann Totusek stood in the doorway to prevent him from coming in. I burst into tears and cried on Dean's shoulder. It was the closest one, I think.
Because the context was well known, everyone was instantly on my side. There was no recrimination at all, only sympathy. Everyone understood why I had lost it, and was completely sympathetic. It helps, of course, that pretty much no one likes Ken. But I think a much more important piece of it was that the abuse of the previous night was known and understood, and so my behavior had context.
There followed a discussion in which I, hilariously, provided technical advice about how to make Ken go away. It was decided that asking the host of the party to remove Ken was the correct procedure to follow. This is in exact compliance with our current anti-harassment policy. Scott, as host, asked for time to consult with Irene, his wife and co-host. That took very little time, but I don't think Irene knew the context and absolutely she needed to be consulted. Also in accordance with our policy, the hosts asked a Board member, in this case Ann, to actually do the evicting. Which she did. And for which I was so very grateful. There was some talk about further bans of various natures, a one year ban from Minicon, maybe a longer one. Ctein brought up the issue that in smaller venues, such as Fallcon, he would not be comfortable with Ken there and there would be a good chance of unpleasant drama if they had to interact. I pointed out that Mnstf meetings are pretty damn small, as well. I pointed out that all of this is stuff that has to be handled at the Board level, that we didn't have a quorum of Board members, and even if we did, I wasn't really ready to deal with all this shit, even as a complainant. As the victim, I cannot actually vote on the outcome, but I can advocate for myself when the time comes. But the time was not now, and what with Ken living out of town, there wasn't any reason to do anything before the next scheduled Board meeting.
Tuesday, I got a call from Ann. Evidently, Ken reached out to Ann and wanted to make things right. He's going to see a counselor through the VA and she was talking about wanting to provide the counselor with properly anonymized information so that he can discuss it with Ken, and I lost my temper. Because really, Ken is not my problem and what I really want is for him to die in a fire, right now. It's been less than 24 hours. And I am frothingly angry, still damaged, and trying to involve me in his rehabilitation is just not on. I have no charitable feelings towards him, and should not be asked to. Ann also said something about wanting to be sure that Mnstf wasn't perceived as an organization that just casually bans people who one of the Board members do not like, and I agree that we don't want to do that, but I cannot cannot cannot talk about this right now. And I am still upset that she tried to do so. I know that she had good intentions. But framing Ken's rehab as a good thing for me makes no sense at all. It does absolutely nothing for me. And right now, if Ken wants to apologize to me, I am not having any, will not listen, and if he calls me I will scream at him until he hangs up the phone. Not having any. Which is, you understand, why I don't get to vote on the issue of what Mnstf should do to Ken. Because genuinely not judicial, here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-04-09 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-09 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 04:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:43 pm (UTC)Let me write some more about Reputation-fail. I described it briefly in this comment:
http://lydy.livejournal.com/137401.html?thread=1335481#t1335481
I've thought on it and can explain exactly why it fails.
First, and very importantly, I'm not discussing a hypothetical here. It happens, time and time again. It's very hard for an inexperienced entity to avoid some flavor of it. And this is really how it works out. Do not treat this as a “well, maybe;” treat it as a sure thing. You will be on much safer ground.
Reputation-fail occurs when you (meaning the individual or group entity trying to deal with an harassment complaint) start worrying about how other people will view your decisions. That should absolutely, positively never ever be on your mind and never enter into the process or deliberations that are dealing with an harassment complaint.
The lesser reason is that it simply doesn't work. If you let this influence you, you will (not may, *will*) make worse decisions. They will be ones that do not address the complaint as well, they will be ones that don't address the needs of the community or the victims as well. In many cases they will be complete failures. They will never, ever be better. By attempting to worry about your reputation, you will damage it more than if you did not. (I'll get back to this)
Furthermore, it will not protect you from criticism even if it did result in good decisions. In the icky-poo, squidgy world of harassment complaints, your decision will always be criticized. Sometimes the criticism will be well-meaning. Sometimes not. Sometimes it will be intentionally destructive. But it is a sure thing that everyone will not consense that you did it wonderfully. Never happens.
Also, it is pointless. The need to defend your reputation is all in your head. The Monday morning quarterbacks who are convinced that you made the wrong decision are not going to be the least bit impressed that you arrived at it by a means you consider “proper.” The ones who are convinced that you made the right decision, well, they don't need your defense. It's a game you're playing in your head so that you can feel more comfortable. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. If you really need to be playing that head game to handle complaints, you're probably not suited to the job.
That's the LESSER reason. The BIG reason is that, as I said, it produces lousy results. In a whole bunch of different ways via a whole bunch of different channels. The most trivial one is the “we don't want to be seen casually banning people, we don't want it to look frivolous, we want to err on the side of caution.” Because, oh yeah, we've always jumped the gun on this one! We, as a community (both fandom at large and Minnstf in particular) have just willy-nilly kicked people out with no thought about it whatsoever, for the most trivial of reasons. (where's the sarcasm font when I need it)
In the 40 years (roughly) that I've been involved, if Minnstf has demonstrated any problem in this regard, it has been that they have been incapable of excluding anyone from their midst for any reason whatsoever. Erring on the side of caution? Quite a few people we wanted to have around have decided to absent themselves from one aspect or another of Minnstf life because we were utterly unable/unwilling to deal with the problem-makers.
Being worried that you will not be seen as acting cautiously enough (by anyone but the Monday morning quarterbacks) is like going to the Easter brunch at the Sofitel and worrying that you won't eat enough. You are worrying about the wrong thing.
That's the trivial channel. (on to the next rock...)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:44 pm (UTC)The really evil and pernicious one is that it drives you to imagine that you can protect yourself by acting “legally”–– only dealing with charges that would stand up in a court of law, only dealing with “objectively verifiable” matters of fact. Putting aside that it will not defend you (see previous paragraphs––this isn't a matter of opinion, this is the real history) it means that you deal with this badly. It means that you make the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons. Because…
Harassment complaints (using the term in its broadest sense) always involve factors that are not objectively verifiable. Those are frequently the most important factors, far more important than what you can measure with a yardstick, legal or otherwise. To declare that that information is non-central is to declare that you're going to ignore the most important information you have.
Harassment goes to state of mind. The state of mind of the perpetrator is important. The remedies that we feel are appropriate for someone who unintentionally and/or singly harasses someone are very different from the ones we entertain for someone who we believe is doing it with malice aforethought or who will be a serial offender, either because they choose to or they can't help themselves. Making that determination requires making huge value judgments that are simply not objectively verifiable in any fashion whatsoever. You can't even reliably ask the perpetrator about their state of mind, because of their intent is malign or serial, they will lie about it. You just have to go with what you believe, in your best judgment, is correct. Because if you don't, they get a free pass. See Jim Frenkel.
On the other side, the state of mind of the victim is hugely important. 'Cause, like, that's what often determines harassment, duh. And there again, you are depending upon their testimony, not observable fact. The fact that 95% of the time the victim won't lie (although they may not remember correctly) and 95% of the time a serial harasser will is just a probabilistic statement and guides your thinking, to some extent. But you don't KNOW.
Eyewitnesses don't necessarily solve that problem. Many victims of harassment don't make a big deal of it at the time. No, that's a false statement. MOST victims don't. It happens for variety of reasons-- they are afraid, they've been socially trained not to make a fuss, they just wish it would go away, it takes a while to process what happened, etc. etc. Very rarely do they scream in front of witnesses, “Stop it! Leave me alone!” If they report it, they report it later, in a safe space, when they have calmed down some, when they have collected their thoughts, when they've processed enough to realize that they were traumatized, etc.
None of what the victims tell you later may be objectively verifiable. A casual or insufficiently-perceptive observer may even testify to the contrary about the victim's state of mind, because they can't see it (example-- people thinking I was being very calm when Ken was approaching Lydy and I at the party, when actually I was planning battery).
Put this altogether and you can understand why reputation-based thinking and process leads to bad results that don't well-serve the community and most importantly, don't serve the victims.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 08:40 am (UTC)But I think there's a fine distinction to be made between worrying whether people will view your decisions and worrying about how individuals whose judgment you trust will view them. Many people (including me) use the real or expected views of specific people whose judgment we trust as either an inspiration or a call to mindfulness.
I know that you're talking about "people" as an amorphous collective rather than what I touched on there. I just wanted to tease out that difference.
(Also, sympathy for the entire situation.)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 06:29 pm (UTC)Hmmmm. If this really does work for you (specific), I'm going to be the last person in the world to tell you you shouldn't be doing it.
But for you (I'm back to the amorphous, the adjudicator) that is a dangerous and most likely unsuccessful approach. It's entirely sensible to seek out the counsel of others whose judgment you respect and trust. I frequently ask Lydy's opinion on matters. But when you-amorphous try to imagine how someone you respect will think or feel about what you're doing, now you're back inside your own head and everything about reputation-fail applies.
I would strongly recommend against trying that trick. The reason that the fails I listed are so prevalent is that they are huge potholes that it's very easy to fall into, so complaint handlers do with unpleasant frequency. When I caution that people need to work to avoid these, I am not saying put down the can opener and step slowly away from the worms. I'm saying run as fast as you can! These are very sucky traps.
The reputation-fail is one of the worst, one of the easiest to get sucked into and one of the stickiest ones to extricate yourself from. We are a social species, and we want the approval of other members of the species (unless we are suffering from sociopathy). It's just who we are. We want and need that even more when we are on uncertain or unpleasant mental ground. We need the reassurance of others as a reality check. For the handler, it's really a parallel to what the victim is going through. Lydy and I have both talked about how hugely sane-making it was to have everybody around us reality-checking our perception and trauma. (See warm and fuzzy post)
Well, it turns out you (amorphous) are in a similar position. You are doing something very hard and very unpleasant; if it's a serious harassment complaint it might actually be the psychologically hardest thing you've ever done in your life, the first time you do it. It's awful and it's ucky and society isn't anywhere close to being advanced enough to make it anything but a thoroughly unpleasant experience for everyone. You could really use that grounding and stabilizing effect of knowing that you have the approval of the world around you. It's entirely reasonable thing to want and it is normally a healthy impulse.
In this kind of situation, though, it is an abreaction that proves counterproductive and leads to worse results.
There's why (among other reasons) reputation-fail is so pernicious and so difficult to avoid.
So, I am exceedingly reluctant to support attempts to finesse this and dance on the edge of the huge slippery and sticky pit. I am pretty sure you'll just fall in, at least until you have lots of experience.
Just run away from 'dem damn worms.
Everyone should remember that this really is hard work, and pretty well impossible to do perfectly. Especially at first.
You can learn to waltz by reading a book and practicing in front of a mirror. You're still going to step on a lot of partners' feet.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 07:39 pm (UTC)(You know me, by the way; we had dinner with Brother Guy at Worldcon)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 08:03 pm (UTC)But how could I resist starting off a post with "Dear Evil?!"
Oh, of course, I remember that dinner... and you (I know who you are behind the evil guise). It was a lovely time and I was delighted to get acquainted with you.
(**we can be less formal, now, initials will serve)
~~~~
I think I wrote poorly, when I started with "If this really does work for you..." It was not meant to read as "I doubt this works for you..." but rather "Taking it as stated that it works for you...", IOW axiomatically factual and we move forward from there. I intended the import of my response was "Kids, we're trained professionals! Don't try this without adult supervision."
Yeah, it would likely be a derail.
I hope we can again be in the same space/time locus on some future occasion.
pax / Ctein
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 04:37 am (UTC)I'd like to echo Ctein's comments about not worrying what others thing and put a bit of a spin on it. [Might be a bit of a triggery metaphor, sorry.]
Fandom has an extreme tolerance for the outsider because it's made of outsiders. I know everyone here knows that, and some are upset that fandom seems to be becoming intolerant. This reaction to the seeming loss of the community is, I think, helping to shelter abusers, so I want to point out a few things that may seem a bit off topic.
We won.
Science fiction is no longer marginalized. We control a significant portion of the publishing world and a massive slice of TV/Movies. We also own the majority of the video game industry. A lot of mourn for a simpler time, but the fact is that we were drawing identity strictly based on being ill-treated by others and that's not healthy. When we say "I was more comfortable identifying as a victim", we create an environment in which abusers thrive.
The second thing is that conventions and face-to-face fandom are no longer the only social outlets for those of us that are "weird". There are hundreds of geek groups in major metros and well over twenty in each modest sized city. On top of this, there are millions of different online groups. The "pity poor me, I'll be so alone" defense should be ignored because it is flatly untrue. What it really says is "I don't want to get better, but I want to play on your empathy to make me feel better.
Don't get me wrong, empathy is great, and trying to help people to get better is great. But abuse is insidious. The word "toxic" is bandied about in discussions like this so much, it's started to lose some of its meaning. You don't ban someone to teach them a lesson. You don't ban someone because a handful of people have a problem with them. You ban someone because are toxic and their poison is leaching into the very fabric of the group. At an event where there's a risk that a toxic person might show, it's not just that they might ruin the fun. The fear of their presence is ever-present. It's like they are a carcinogen and every interaction increases the group's risk. Over time, this builds up and sickens everyone. When the toxic person shows up, it's almost a relief because you can point to what's been making the group unhealthy.
There are poisons from which people can recover, and there are types that kill almost instantly. In the former case, you can tell a treatment is working because you begin to feel better ... much in the same way that you can tell that someone is improving socially because they cease being as painful to be with and eventually might even become pleasant. In the latter case, the group just dies. Parties stop, people cease to be friends, and the more healthy people move on leaving those most damaged to suffer from the experience for the rest of their lives.
The people we're talking about fit neither of these scenarios. We act like just because they don't kill us immediately, they must be relatively benign, but they're not. There's a third type of damage, which is life-long and ever-worsening. There neurotoxins that kill over years. Hesitant doctors and patients, fearful of large change, will whittle appendages away decade over decade and never treat the core issue. Those who never want to deal with the problem again must take more drastic action.
Ken has been in the group for 40 years. He is toxic and we have all been poisoned. If he and those like him remain, the group will eventually die. If we are to survive, we must amputate. We may lose a few friends in the process, but some healthy tissue is always lost. We may be judged negatively by some, but we must take care of ourselves first. Those that matter will understand the decision we made and support our right to be healthy.
It would be insane to try to alter the poison, as we would be most likely to wind up with a more effective poison. It would be nice if we could contain the limb to prevent it from harming others, but that is not in our power.
I am in favor of a lifetime ban and letting the fallout be what it will be, simply because I know that the alternative is going to be far worse.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 02:12 pm (UTC)One indicator of that kind of persistent, debilitating, life-sapping neurotoxic situation is the presence of lore about how to deal with it. The grapevine: it doesn't reach everybody, and it doesn't address removing the problem, and it's mostly about mitigation by the people most likely to be absorbing the poison, but it can feel much better than doing nothing, and it actually does (sometimes) help keep (some people) out of close contact with the toxin.
It sometimes does this by keeping them out of part or all of fandom. That's the price we've been paying so far. How's that been working out for us?
If there's lore about how to deal with a person ("Just don't get into an elevator/small room/conversation/argument with them and you'll probably be fine"), and if that lore is generally shared with people likeliest to feel the direct effects of the poison (rather than people who have historically been in the decision-making position with regards to the continuing presence of the poison-emitter), there's a very strong chance of a toxic person embedded thoroughly in the group. If handing on that lore is seen as a courteous thing to do for newbies in a certain demographic because it might save them from some awfulness happening to them, that chance improves to pretty near a dead certainty.
(Note that the kind of lore I'm talking about generally includes personal experience of the teller or of someone the teller names -- "ask Sujalee, she's had to deal with them more than once" -- and is about how the target can remove themselves from situations, never about removing the poison-emitter from those situations.)
(edited to supply missing prepositions and articles, for lo, I am a tired lioness)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 08:38 pm (UTC)It is completely possible we've missed some wonderful people who took one look at Murgatroyd or one of his brothers and ran screaming.
It's possible that Ken's departure (hypothesized so far) will bring on a renaissance for us, of course; but I doubt it. I know two cases of people who won't host Minn-StF because of specific people, and it wasn't Ken in either case (and one of those cases I think wouldn't host for other reasons also today). (I know a third case that won't host because of an unspecified individual.) Probably other people spend a LOT more time worrying about Ken than I did, and perhaps their being able to stop will make them enjoy Minn-StF more and hence come around more, or be more fun when they're with us, or something. Just being able to not worry so much is clearly better, anyway.
Ken has been a problem forever and has crossed two red lines here and I have no sympathy for him over anything Minn-StF may officially do about him, you understand.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-12 02:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 03:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 05:59 pm (UTC)Uh. Wow.
clapclapclapclap!!!!!!
You are brilliant.
Insert Warm and Fuzzy Post here.
(also, for at the con. you know what I mean)
pax / Ctein
no subject
Date: 2015-04-12 06:35 pm (UTC)We don't know each other but we share a common harasser in Ken Konkol. My interactions with him were always online, never in person, so nothing like what he did to you. I eventually had to first stop letting people write on my FB wall, and ultimately I had to just outright block him. I read your account with a mix of "Thank ghod it's not just me" relief and "Oh ghod, it's not just me" dread. I live on the East Coast, so my experience is not part of the four-decades-long history he has with Minicon or Minns-t-f fandom. I had no idea, until I read what he did to you, that he has such a Frenkel-like extensive past of bad behavior. :( I'm not ready to share my name yet. I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-12 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-13 04:43 am (UTC)http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
no subject
Date: 2015-04-22 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-16 02:20 pm (UTC)I add my voice in saying I'm so sorry this happened to you.
I've tried to read everything here a few times but i get interrupted and i know I've skimmed some... so my apologies if i missed this but i have 1 question: when was Ken discovered in the closet? The next morning or that night/morning as Joel was closing down the room?
This is just to clarify my understanding of facts. I don't think it changes the fact that he crossed a line, either by staying after the rooms were closed or just intending to.
*hugs*
no subject
Date: 2015-04-22 03:58 pm (UTC)