Some conventions may think that Charlottesville is a non-furry issue so they won't make a statement. Obviously, a good deal of conventions believe it is, and given the patterns of such individuals that would use provocative symbols have made their presence known at other conventions earlier this year they felt is was best to make a statement, to which I would agree.
This kind of thing should be on the Code of Conduct section of the convention manual, regardless. But it doesn't hurt to make a statement on it. I would go so far as to that they get specific. List out what symbols are not allowed. Don't use broad language about symbols and then expect people to know what symbols are barred.
I believe in private enterprises holding rule sets, but I like them to be specific. It clears up the air and lets people know what they are getting into. If they have to use the clause: "We reserve the right to ban anyone" too frequently it means their rule sets need more amendment to make it clear when they will do it.
The failure of leadership I'm noting comes from the United States government in this case, and unfortunately when the government lacks leadership and conviction, the expectation is that this job then falls upon the local leaders. Yes, even our furry conventions.
Some conventions may think that Charlottesville is a non-furry issue so they won't make a statement. Obviously, a good deal of conventions believe it is, and given the patterns of such individuals that would use provocative symbols have made their presence known at other conventions earlier this year they felt is was best to make a statement, to which I would agree.
This kind of thing should be on the Code of Conduct section of the convention manual, regardless. But it doesn't hurt to make a statement on it. I would go so far as to that they get specific. List out what symbols are not allowed. Don't use broad language about symbols and then expect people to know what symbols are barred.
I believe in private enterprises holding rule sets, but I like them to be specific. It clears up the air and lets people know what they are getting into. If they have to use the clause: "We reserve the right to ban anyone" too frequently it means their rule sets need more amendment to make it clear when they will do it.
The failure of leadership I'm noting comes from the United States government in this case, and unfortunately when the government lacks leadership and conviction, the expectation is that this job then falls upon the local leaders. Yes, even our furry conventions.