I hear and understand you Equivamp, but you're focusing on the wrong end. Yes, the concom can't investigate and be judge, jury and executioner on every incident. Cons need to set policy, do what they can do it enforce it, accept responsibility for group behavior (which means the bad individuals within the group, but as I say elsewhere, the facilities don't care - the individuals are the group), and keep pushing back on those who push the limits. The concom sets the tone for attendee behavior. If there are no policies against bad behavior, it's implicitly allowed. If there are policies but no sanctions, it's implicitly allowed. If there are sanctions but they are never enforced, it's implicitly allowed. We've worked conventions where the concom wouldn't sanction anyone for anything and where their staff set the tone by being some of the worst violators. We almost never work such cons a second time. Most of those cons don't last more than a few years. They either implode or suddenly discover that they can't find a place to hold the con.
[[ A bit of an aside: Policy is hard, but if you want a good one, look at the opening statement for Anthrocon's policy:
Any action or behavior that causes significant interference with convention operations, excessive discomfort to other attendees, or adversely affects Anthrocon's relationship with its guests, its venues or the public is strictly forbidden and may result in permanent suspension of membership.
IMHO, that's the core or all good con behavior policies: let folks have as much fun as they can without hurting themselves or the people around them, and don't sh*t where you live. The de-facto policy may actually be kind of loose compared to the de jure, but in general that's a good thing. I tell my new staff a pretty consistent line: I don't care if someone is drunk. I care if they're drunk and disorderly. I don't care if they're stoned. I care if they're getting stoned in the lobby. I don't care is somebody is a horn-dog SOB. I care if he paws or harasses somebody. I don't care if two people have a dispute that's led them to threat of violence or actual violence. I care if it happens at the con. If it causes a problem for the attendees or the facility, I'll come down on it. If it doesn't, let it ride. But once it does cause a problem, I'll be consistent in application. Hotel says "no more drunks in the lobby" - OK, now I care about drunks in the lobby even without the disorderly. Inconsistent? Maybe. I prefer to think of it as tolerance moderated by the actual on-the-ground situation. ]]
I've sat in a number of face-to-face meetings both in-con and post-con with facility management (ah, the joys of being a senior security manager). When the facility discusses an attendee incident and the concom says "that person is banned for a year" and "we'll pay the costs", the facility says "thank you." When there's no person identified as responsible but the concom makes visible reaction to a problem - public announcements, reminders of sanction for violators, and actual enforcement in the cases where a violator gets caught - the facility says "thank you." For obvious reasons I'm not naming names, but yeah, real-world situations, multiple different cons, consistently across the years.
Concoms can't control all attendee behavior. But they can set the tone, they can take responsibility for their group, and they must be willing to sanction bad behavior. They've gotta try, and to try visibly. They've got to show the attendees and the facilities that they're trying.
Steve Simmons of the Dorsai again -
I hear and understand you Equivamp, but you're focusing on the wrong end. Yes, the concom can't investigate and be judge, jury and executioner on every incident. Cons need to set policy, do what they can do it enforce it, accept responsibility for group behavior (which means the bad individuals within the group, but as I say elsewhere, the facilities don't care - the individuals are the group), and keep pushing back on those who push the limits. The concom sets the tone for attendee behavior. If there are no policies against bad behavior, it's implicitly allowed. If there are policies but no sanctions, it's implicitly allowed. If there are sanctions but they are never enforced, it's implicitly allowed. We've worked conventions where the concom wouldn't sanction anyone for anything and where their staff set the tone by being some of the worst violators. We almost never work such cons a second time. Most of those cons don't last more than a few years. They either implode or suddenly discover that they can't find a place to hold the con.
[[ A bit of an aside: Policy is hard, but if you want a good one, look at the opening statement for Anthrocon's policy:
IMHO, that's the core or all good con behavior policies: let folks have as much fun as they can without hurting themselves or the people around them, and don't sh*t where you live. The de-facto policy may actually be kind of loose compared to the de jure, but in general that's a good thing. I tell my new staff a pretty consistent line: I don't care if someone is drunk. I care if they're drunk and disorderly. I don't care if they're stoned. I care if they're getting stoned in the lobby. I don't care is somebody is a horn-dog SOB. I care if he paws or harasses somebody. I don't care if two people have a dispute that's led them to threat of violence or actual violence. I care if it happens at the con. If it causes a problem for the attendees or the facility, I'll come down on it. If it doesn't, let it ride. But once it does cause a problem, I'll be consistent in application. Hotel says "no more drunks in the lobby" - OK, now I care about drunks in the lobby even without the disorderly. Inconsistent? Maybe. I prefer to think of it as tolerance moderated by the actual on-the-ground situation. ]]
I've sat in a number of face-to-face meetings both in-con and post-con with facility management (ah, the joys of being a senior security manager). When the facility discusses an attendee incident and the concom says "that person is banned for a year" and "we'll pay the costs", the facility says "thank you." When there's no person identified as responsible but the concom makes visible reaction to a problem - public announcements, reminders of sanction for violators, and actual enforcement in the cases where a violator gets caught - the facility says "thank you." For obvious reasons I'm not naming names, but yeah, real-world situations, multiple different cons, consistently across the years.
Concoms can't control all attendee behavior. But they can set the tone, they can take responsibility for their group, and they must be willing to sanction bad behavior. They've gotta try, and to try visibly. They've got to show the attendees and the facilities that they're trying.