No we don't, unfortunately. However this harsh stance would show hotels we are serious about protecting their property and we will gladly work with them to ensure that people are respectful of their property.
This whole paranoia thing about con-chairs being some corrupt body looking to ban people at the slightest reasoning is quite odd to me. If a con-chair is that corrupt would you want to be at their convention anyway? If a con chair "doesn't like you" but you pay for being an attendee and such, they probably aren't going to care if you think they smell as a person. Trust me, con chairs have bigger fish to fry than some way-ward critic. If Kage only allowed the people he liked to attend his convention, it wouldn't even be close to 6,000 people there. It's poor business sense to ban willy-nilly.
And this wouldn't change the fact that, yes, if Kage really wanted to he could ban me from Anthrocon tomorrow. For no reason other than he wanted to. This suggestion of cons working together that if they do find a furry has been damaging hotels, of which they have solid evidence for, that they consider if that person should be allowed back to any convention in a hotel, lest they do the same there. If they wanted to not seem so heavy handed they could make it a two strike rule where the first time is a ban from the particular con, and the second is the overall convention ban.
If there would be any critique of this kind of hard position I think it wouldn't be a con chair, but one individual trying to get another individual banned through sabotage of some sort and set them up to make it look like they were the ones doing the vandalism. Of course doing so would risk they get caught for their scheme as well.
Also what kind of vandalism would be considered large enough for such a stark consideration would need to be made clear. Like ripping a con poster off the wall versus the bathroom flooding kind. Clearly the later should be more harshly dealt with than the former.
And as far as the "Twitter" thing, I'm pretty sure con-chairs talk to each other with less public means. This is not about the attendees flying around accusations. This is about con-chairs communicating with one another, as it seems they always have been anyway. Individuals would merely report issues to the security or hotel staff as needed. They get no say in who is banned where, as they currently don't.
No we don't, unfortunately. However this harsh stance would show hotels we are serious about protecting their property and we will gladly work with them to ensure that people are respectful of their property.
This whole paranoia thing about con-chairs being some corrupt body looking to ban people at the slightest reasoning is quite odd to me. If a con-chair is that corrupt would you want to be at their convention anyway? If a con chair "doesn't like you" but you pay for being an attendee and such, they probably aren't going to care if you think they smell as a person. Trust me, con chairs have bigger fish to fry than some way-ward critic. If Kage only allowed the people he liked to attend his convention, it wouldn't even be close to 6,000 people there. It's poor business sense to ban willy-nilly.
And this wouldn't change the fact that, yes, if Kage really wanted to he could ban me from Anthrocon tomorrow. For no reason other than he wanted to. This suggestion of cons working together that if they do find a furry has been damaging hotels, of which they have solid evidence for, that they consider if that person should be allowed back to any convention in a hotel, lest they do the same there. If they wanted to not seem so heavy handed they could make it a two strike rule where the first time is a ban from the particular con, and the second is the overall convention ban.
If there would be any critique of this kind of hard position I think it wouldn't be a con chair, but one individual trying to get another individual banned through sabotage of some sort and set them up to make it look like they were the ones doing the vandalism. Of course doing so would risk they get caught for their scheme as well.
Also what kind of vandalism would be considered large enough for such a stark consideration would need to be made clear. Like ripping a con poster off the wall versus the bathroom flooding kind. Clearly the later should be more harshly dealt with than the former.
And as far as the "Twitter" thing, I'm pretty sure con-chairs talk to each other with less public means. This is not about the attendees flying around accusations. This is about con-chairs communicating with one another, as it seems they always have been anyway. Individuals would merely report issues to the security or hotel staff as needed. They get no say in who is banned where, as they currently don't.