A terminology quibble from the Readercon fiasco

[womzilla]

A "zero tolerance" policy and a "lifetime ban" are completely separate things.

"Zero tolerance" is a type of enforcement--true "zero tolerance" means that if you break the rule, you will receive the punishment, no exceptions. "Lifetime ban" is a definition of a type punishment that is available for those who punish those who violate the policy.

A zero-tolerance policy can have many levels of punishment, based on elements such as specific offense (a "zero-tolerance" rule against possessing weapons could still have different levels of punishment for carrying a knife vs. carrying a suitcase packed with explosives) or repeat offenses. "Zero tolerance" and "lifetime ban" aren't synonyms.

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I quite agree that the Readercon committee blew it. They had a stated policy and they didn't follow it. If you're going to alter the policy, you do so before you announce the penalties imposed under it.

But that's a separate issue, as womzilla notes above. A bad policy doesn't make a convention safer.

[sarah-ovenall.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're responding to; I haven't said anything about Readercon.

I thought your question about zero tolerance policies meaning the person subject to the policy was unacceptable and unredeemable forever suggested that you didn't understand what "zero tolerance policy" meant, and was trying to offer a more detailed explanation (to follow up on Kevin's perfectly clear explanation). Sorry about that.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Okay.