kevin_standlee | Conventions: Members Versus Customers

The post-Eastercon discussions going on in

eastercon and elsewhere include the question of those people who attend conventions viewing themselves solely as "paying customers." I suggested we may need to start printing a fine-print contract on membership materials, the way sporting events and concerts do on their tickets, such as:

THIS IS NOT A TICKET. You are a member of this convention. This event is being organized entirely by volunteers who are working without compensation and who had to pay for their own memberships and travel expenses. While the organizers will make a reasonable effort to present this event in the way it is described in its written materials, they cannot guarantee that all things will happen as planned. By purchasing this membership you explicitly acknowledge that all functions are subject to change or cancellation with or without notice for any reason whatsoever.

This is only a rough first effort, but I think you get the idea. It is a little sad that I can say that I'm quite serious that we may really need to do this or face threats of litigation for "false advertising" and "breech of contract" with attendees.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But I would have thought it clear that that's not what I meant by "treating everyone at cons as friends."

I just mean talking to people in a friendly manner, rather than in a polite stranger manner. Surely the difference is clear.

No, the difference is not clear. The difference is perception-based, and our perceptions may vary. Different people see things differently. And, in fact, what you see as "polite stranger manner" may be all someone's capable of doing for anybody at a particular time.

But it is a withdrawal, and if it's a widespread tactic I think being treated as strangers is a significant part of what makes con attendees think of themselves as ticket-holders rather than members of something.

Don't assume it is a "tactic" -- tactics are aimed at winning battles; "coping mechanisms" are designed to just get you through something.

My biggest problem with your comments here is that you talk about "conrunner language" as if anyone who is a conrunner acts in this particular way.

I've heard others speak similarly of convention runners and SMOFs -- that we are all X or we are Y or that some behavior or attitude is "just the way all SMOFS act." Given how much of myself I've put into some conventions, your stereotyping has managed to hit one of my hot buttons.

(deleted comment)

I think you do know the difference.

Think all you want. You do not know me, so you can't possibly judge my knowledge, reactions, or perceptions with any reliability. (But I'm a bit unclear on what I'm supposed to know the difference *between.*)

Don't stereotype me.

Wouldn't dream of it. I have no idea if you are affiliated with some clearly identifiable group.

What interests me is that you talk about "conrunner language" while professing to be a convention runner yourself. So, if it's universal, you must do it, too. If it's not universal, classifying it as "conrunner language" is slapping an unfair label on convention runners.

In particular, both you and bovril seem not to realize how your "coping mechanisms" put you across to people who just want to help and feel part of the convention.

I haven't heard from those "people," just you.

Perhaps you might survey the people who have worked for and with me, to determine whether or not they have felt unloved, unappreciated, or unwanted. Given that I had the opportunity to lead the finest group of convention runners and volunteers ever amassed for a Worldcon, I did my very, very best to ensure they knew exactly how special they were, and how wonderful was their creation.

The idea that "conrunner language" must either mean they all do it or be an "unfair label" is equally bizarre. Let's see what happens if we make that assumption. How about the term "American English"? Not all Americans speak in that vocabulary or style, so that's an "unfair label."

No, it's a standard. That's why they call it "Standard American English" in the linguistics biz.

How about the "Boston accent" or "Brooklyn accent" or "Jersey accent"? Not all inhabitants of those localities speak like that, in fact probably only a small minority do, so those are "unfair labels."

There is a distinctive Boston accent -- trust me on this. I hear it every day. It is called that because it can be found in people from this area and in no other people.

So, pretty much, you're equating whatever this distinctive "conrunning language" is with an accent found exclusively in one particular group?

How about jokes on Canadians saying "eh?", jokes which both Canadians and non-Canadians make? Not all Canadians speak that way, so that too must be an "unfair label." I've never heard Canadians object to this label; they just smile wryly.

Good for them. I didn't realize you were joking.

So are you sure all your staff and volunteers were happy?

What I wrote was, "I did my very, very best to ensure they knew exactly how special they were, and how wonderful was their creation."

That means that I did my best -- and our division heads did their best -- and so on. When someone worked for me directly, I tried very hard to make them feel special. And I did my level best to make sure the entire committee -- at *all* levels (and you damned betcha that meant at-con volunteers) -- got what praise I could give and some of my time if they wanted it.

Does that means I didn't have to smack people and take names? No. *sigh* One of the problems with being in a management position in convention running is that we have to do that. We have to say, to someone we like...frequently a friend..."You've screwed up." Sometimes, we need to say, "You're fired."

That sucks. I don't every want to be in that position again.

But the praising part -- that I liked. :-)

The person whose inconsiderate act led me to resign my volunteer post at ConJose was also a staff member at your Worldcon (I see from its website), and so was the person to whom I said "I quit." (I'd never met either of them before; they're not the friend who said "May I help you?" If you want to know who they are, ask Kevin: I'm not posting their names.)

Heh. I did, and he did, and my (generic, unidentifiable) comments: "resignation causer" is not a good manager, but will do some effective work if aimed at the right kind of problem (and is better behaved now, btw). However, aiming and good directions are needed there.

I don't know who you resigned *to*, but "impersonal communicator" has mmm...health-related issues that cause some of the behavior you observed, especially in high-fatigue situations. (If it makes you feel better, or at least less alone, I get *exactly* the same behavior from "impersonal communicator," who I have known, and very well, for 16 years. So does impersonal communicator's *spouse* when convention fatigue is involved.)

Through all of this, I think it's important to note that: (1) the fannish community is not known as one where interpersonal communication skills are highly honed; (2) we don't have nearly enough good management or supervisory talent; and (3) we can only hope that, in the heat of a Worldcon, we all behave *courteously* -- we may not always be able to manage "warmly."

I understand your comments about how you felt you were treated -- but let's not make this a "conrunner" thing. It's the same way in all structures which are, by necessity, hierarchical. Some people at levels up in the hierarchy will understand nobless oblige...others will only see exploitable serfs below them -- people who don't count. We need to smack those latter.

ou keep professing not to grasp a difference between friendly behavior and "polite stranger" behavior, which I find so bizarre and which puts you back on that other planet you claim to prefer to inhabit.

I agree that some SMOFs may not have complete social skill sets. I sure don't. I often make mistakes with people. I don't consider this to be a defect unique to conrunners, though.

I will say that if you have a problem with the way your friend treated you, I think that's an issue between you and your friend.

And, like many word-oriented geeks, in a stressful situation, I sometimes get fairly formal, wordy, and excessively precise with people if I perceive a lack of communication. The people who accept this flaw of mine are my friends. The people who don't are not. One of the things I like about fandom (and this isn't universal but it is common) is the way people accept each other's social quirks.

I've been on committees with a lot of annoying people. Not only do I not consider the committee to be the reason I work on conventions, I often tell my friends, "We're doing this for the membership, not for ."

Conventions: Members Versus Customers

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject