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

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Genevieve's account of what happened is clear, there were witnesses, Rene does not deny it, and I do consider it sexual harassment. Genevieve kept her cool far better than I would have, but that's irrelevant.

Kate Kligman came forward afterward with a letter to the Readercon board. The letter dos mention a working relationship, but not room-sharing. I read about the room sharing in a comment of smofbabe's in a discussion of the Readercon incident somewhere; I cannot recall where.

This is the part I really want to clarify--I consider Kate Kligman's account harassing behavior, and I don't consider the fact that they had previously worked together or shared rooms a mitigating factor AT ALL.

The harassment need not be random and it need not be at cons. These are not my criteria, these are things you have added to my comments.

With Valentine and Kligman together,I consider this a pattern of behavior, although I suppose in the geometric sense it's only a line.

NOW are we clear? You have made your point, I have your neutral facts, and I STILL disagree with you, apparently about the core fact of what constitutes harassment. And I am comfortable with that.