Good response (not that anything else was possible)
I read Crystal Huff's account earlier, and however you consider the evidence (not that I'm doubting her), there's something seriously amiss with the way it's been handled.
If someone has been banned from any con on a safety issue, never mind three (or was it four?) for stalking, there's simply no way you can responsibly place them in a position of authority over safety at your con. The liability issues it invites for Arisia are mind-boggling.
Equally you can't restrict someone from interacting with someone else, and then appoint them to oversight of the safety function. Except if you are using the restriction as smoke and mirrors for doing nothing. Which itself says that the safety function at Arisia is not fit for purpose.
All this goes double if you're the President of the con. And if you're the President of the con, having been banned from multiple other cons for stalking, then something is seriously wrong with the entire structure and management of the con. Even if you want to bluff it out, putting yourself at the top of the safety management tree is just stupid, because it pretty much guarantees someone is going to say "Wait, what!?!"
I'm not sure anything short of the Readercon response would be adequate.
no subject
I read Crystal Huff's account earlier, and however you consider the evidence (not that I'm doubting her), there's something seriously amiss with the way it's been handled.
If someone has been banned from any con on a safety issue, never mind three (or was it four?) for stalking, there's simply no way you can responsibly place them in a position of authority over safety at your con. The liability issues it invites for Arisia are mind-boggling.
Equally you can't restrict someone from interacting with someone else, and then appoint them to oversight of the safety function. Except if you are using the restriction as smoke and mirrors for doing nothing. Which itself says that the safety function at Arisia is not fit for purpose.
All this goes double if you're the President of the con. And if you're the President of the con, having been banned from multiple other cons for stalking, then something is seriously wrong with the entire structure and management of the con. Even if you want to bluff it out, putting yourself at the top of the safety management tree is just stupid, because it pretty much guarantees someone is going to say "Wait, what!?!"
I'm not sure anything short of the Readercon response would be adequate.