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

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

What the COMMITTEE has done--enforce the policy that was in place when the assault took place--has made Readercon safer. What the BOARD did--make an exception because a well-liked BFN said he was really, reallt sorry about the assault--made the convention less safe.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

How? The harassment was stopped and he was removed from the con for several years. How is the next con less safe?

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Let's say a convention has a horrible incident with one attendee coming up to another in the middle of the main corridor and, unprovoked, punching them square in the face. The convention board's response is to expel the assailant permanently from the convention. They then, with great fanfare and significant praise, write into the convention guidelines that anyone who assaults another member of the convention will be banned forever from the convention.

Four years pass. It happens again--right in the middle of the main hall, bam, right in the face. Only, this time, instead of being an obviously crazy person, the assailant is a well-liked member of the community. The victim complains, and the convention board* decides that the rules don't actually apply, and that the assailant will be allowed to return in 2 years because he's really, really sorry for the unprovoked assault.

*You keep conflating the board and the committee. The committee are the people who actual run the convention. The Readercon board is an august body with little actual responsibility to the convention. The committee was appalled by the board's actions in this actual case.

Do you think you would feel MORE safe or LESS safe for what the board did? Not just 2 years from now, when the assailant returns; do you think you would feel MORE safe because the board said, "We will enforce the rule against punching people in the face sometimes, but not in full, if we feel like it"?

But you've already declared that you have no interest in hearing what other people dare to say about this. So, whatevs.