Spreading a criticism is one thing, straight up bashing with your own inventions is another. You can't say "whoops, I did a false rumor, it's the con's fault because they maintain operational opacity." One can critique lying while also not humoring people's entitlement to transparency.
For one thing, NDA's exist. For another, this social media age accustoms people to instant access to yell in each other's ears, look at every private document, trade all the artists work without attibution etc. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. And resistance to that can be refreshing (look at the Furry Raiders and altfurs antisocial entitlement to ruin any standards at all.)
Saying "nope, our house our rules" is a way to generate a lot of childish drama (an issue itself) apart from more valid questions about where the line is between public and private. There is also definitely a serious issue of stuff like outing people to employers (again, compare youtube postings where you dont get face blurrring), or whether an event is a community flagship (this one's a startup, not Anthrocon) or consumer rights (they delivered a con) and so forth, but harsh knee jerk reaction apart from principle can make the con come off looking justified in saying "no" about it.
That's one way the con went against the grain, and next year's attendance may bear out how attendees felt. Based on receptions afterward, it doesnt look like the con will shrink from a healthy first year of 800 goers.
Not to say that such surprises are good or a practice to expect, either, I'm just saying: look at your headline. What history... did Furlandia shut down? Or did it help them get established? It could be hard to say in context of size and location, and growth isn't the point of cons, but getting notice that helps sustain them may be a thing. I don't know, I'm being agnostic for the moment and waiting to see how the TV show comes out.
Spreading a criticism is one thing, straight up bashing with your own inventions is another. You can't say "whoops, I did a false rumor, it's the con's fault because they maintain operational opacity." One can critique lying while also not humoring people's entitlement to transparency.
For one thing, NDA's exist. For another, this social media age accustoms people to instant access to yell in each other's ears, look at every private document, trade all the artists work without attibution etc. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. And resistance to that can be refreshing (look at the Furry Raiders and altfurs antisocial entitlement to ruin any standards at all.)
Saying "nope, our house our rules" is a way to generate a lot of childish drama (an issue itself) apart from more valid questions about where the line is between public and private. There is also definitely a serious issue of stuff like outing people to employers (again, compare youtube postings where you dont get face blurrring), or whether an event is a community flagship (this one's a startup, not Anthrocon) or consumer rights (they delivered a con) and so forth, but harsh knee jerk reaction apart from principle can make the con come off looking justified in saying "no" about it.
That's one way the con went against the grain, and next year's attendance may bear out how attendees felt. Based on receptions afterward, it doesnt look like the con will shrink from a healthy first year of 800 goers.
Not to say that such surprises are good or a practice to expect, either, I'm just saying: look at your headline. What history... did Furlandia shut down? Or did it help them get established? It could be hard to say in context of size and location, and growth isn't the point of cons, but getting notice that helps sustain them may be a thing. I don't know, I'm being agnostic for the moment and waiting to see how the TV show comes out.