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

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I guess one of the questions for me is "Who decides?" We had some discussions about this incident at Bubonicon this past weekend. Of four women in one of the discussions, three of them did not feel that the behavior in question would have made them feel unsafe or harassed. One did. The behavior was the same but the reaction to it was different. So how do you as a convention committee draft a harassment policy that describes levels of behavior and the commensurate punishments that is fair to all parties?

Before I continue, I want to make clear that I think there have been and unfortunately continue to be problems with some men at conventions and that it's important for women not to have to put up with harassing behavior or for men to get away with it. However, it's sometimes not as simple a problem as we'd like it to be. For a theoretical example, suppose a woman has had an unfortunate troubled past regarding violent behavior towards her from men. Suppose she is at a convention and she perceives behavior from a man as threatening that most women with a different background might not and she reports him. Does the fact that she feels unsafe automatically mean that the man is banned? Or suppose that a couple has had a bad breakup and at a subsequent convention they have a non-violent but nasty altercation - if she reports him, is he automatically banned?

I think the people are making this a black-and-white issue when it's sometimes not so simple for committees who want to do the right thing for all attendees.

[avram]

First, for drafting a more transparent anti-harassment policy, I'd start with this.

Second, keep in mind that Walling was reported for continuing behavior, not just that single thing where he put his arm around Valentine (although that was the most blatant incident). And Walling admitted the behavior. If Valentine had, as you say would have in her position, not considered his behavior harassment, she wouldn't have reported him, and he'd never have been accused of harassment.

If all he'd done was just touch her shoulder one time, seen that she didn't like it, and walked off and not bothered her again, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have reported him, and he'd never have been accused of harassment.

If Walling had disputed her description of the events, and Valentine hadn't had witnesses to back up her side, well, we don't know what would have happened then, do we? You seem to be assuming that the board would have automatically believed Valentine, but I doubt that, myself.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Still not making myself clear, I guess: when I say I wouldn't have felt unsafe or harassed, I'm talking about the entire incident, not just the arm around the shoulder. As we've seen, other women do or would.

Also, admitting that you did actions does not necessarily mean that you agree with the interpretations of those actions.

You don't seem to have responded to my hypothetical examples.