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]

"and consistently demands a much higher level of proof for sexual harassment complaints"

Whoa there. Just who is demanding such higher proof? "Someone" who wrote a letter? Certainly not the Readercon Committee, who came down hard on the offender. The argument here is about the punishment. No one in any of the comments I've seen here is denying the offense.

See below comment. You are awfully close to crossing a line.

[avram]

I like that the comment saying "No one in any of the comments I've seen here is denying the offense" came out right below the comment denying the offense. (Which I imagine wasn't there yet at the time barondave started typing his response to redbird, but it's still a great coincidence.)

[redbird]

If it is crossing a line to say that you have the luck to be able to ignore rape culture and the endless excuses made for harassers, I am perfectly happy to be over here on the other side of the line from you. (Excuses including completely baseless speculations that Rene might have Asperger's, as if people with Asperger's cannot understand "stop" or "go away," because the people posting the speculations apparently didn't want to consider that a "normal" male fan might be guilty of harassment.)