Feeling Badgered
Jul. 31st, 2007 11:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleePrior to last night's BASFA meeting, much deconstruction of the fannish train wreck that was Con-X-Treme happened. Among the foolish things the convention reportedly did was to use wristbands for admission rather than badges, and to require that every member have their photo taken, and that photo was made part of their convention membership credentials. When I expressed extreme incredulity that a convention would do what I consider such an incredibly stupid thing, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jorhett (who I should make it clear neither worked on Con-X-Treme nor was even there at the con and didn't even know it was happening) told me that having a photograph as part of your membership badge -- to make it "impossible" to share badges -- was standard operating procedure at "East Coast" cons.
I said, "When did that start? I've attended Boskone, and they don't do that there."
The reply: "Boskone? Is that in Boston? Well, I meant south of New York."
I raised an eyebrow, "So Massachusetts isn't on the American East Coast?"
But I digress. I find the idea that you would have to have a photo-badge to attend a convention absurd, for many reasons, but most notably because of what it tells me about the organizers' priorities. See this posting from last year and read my article "Feeling Badgered" in Argentus #6. In that article, I set out what I consider the main criteria for a convention membership badges are, and I make ticket-to-admit the second priority, not the first.
In my opinion. photo-badges for all members sets ticket-to-admit priority to stratospheric, and everything else to insignificant. It sets off all of my hot buttons. I know that Lisa isn't the only person I know who would refuse to attend a convention that required photo-badges for all attendees. Remember, I'm someone who doesn't think you should have to show government-issued photographic ID to collect your membership if you have one of the good alternatives such as your original membership receipt or convention publications received by mail or can be personally identified by a trusted convention staff member. I detest the "your papers pliz" culture that we've become.
Note that there are certain specific applications where a photo badge is justified. I wouldn't issue them to the entire convention staff and committee, but if there are certain very sensitive areas -- in particular ones where theTreasury Office That Does Not Exist is located -- there might be some justification for a small number of photo-badges, particularly if security is being provided by paid guards who don't know who the individuals involved are.
But requiring every member of the convention to have their photo taken and that photo appear on their convention badge or other token-of-admission-to-event? Not for me.
Edit, 13:50: Clarified that the person who brought up the photo-badges issue as "routine at east coast cons" was neither associated with Con-X-Treme nor attended it. My apologies if my earlier wording implied otherwise.
jorhett (who I should make it clear neither worked on Con-X-Treme nor was even there at the con and didn't even know it was happening) told me that having a photograph as part of your membership badge -- to make it "impossible" to share badges -- was standard operating procedure at "East Coast" cons.I said, "When did that start? I've attended Boskone, and they don't do that there."
The reply: "Boskone? Is that in Boston? Well, I meant south of New York."
I raised an eyebrow, "So Massachusetts isn't on the American East Coast?"
But I digress. I find the idea that you would have to have a photo-badge to attend a convention absurd, for many reasons, but most notably because of what it tells me about the organizers' priorities. See this posting from last year and read my article "Feeling Badgered" in Argentus #6. In that article, I set out what I consider the main criteria for a convention membership badges are, and I make ticket-to-admit the second priority, not the first.
In my opinion. photo-badges for all members sets ticket-to-admit priority to stratospheric, and everything else to insignificant. It sets off all of my hot buttons. I know that Lisa isn't the only person I know who would refuse to attend a convention that required photo-badges for all attendees. Remember, I'm someone who doesn't think you should have to show government-issued photographic ID to collect your membership if you have one of the good alternatives such as your original membership receipt or convention publications received by mail or can be personally identified by a trusted convention staff member. I detest the "your papers pliz" culture that we've become.
Note that there are certain specific applications where a photo badge is justified. I wouldn't issue them to the entire convention staff and committee, but if there are certain very sensitive areas -- in particular ones where the
But requiring every member of the convention to have their photo taken and that photo appear on their convention badge or other token-of-admission-to-event? Not for me.
Edit, 13:50: Clarified that the person who brought up the photo-badges issue as "routine at east coast cons" was neither associated with Con-X-Treme nor attended it. My apologies if my earlier wording implied otherwise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 06:42 pm (UTC)The reply: "Boskone? Is that in Boston? Well, I meant south of New York."
I raised an eyebrow, "So Massachusetts isn't on the American East Coast?
I'm curious what conventions they were talking about; the conventions I've attended on the East Coast (LunaCon, SheVaCon, and RavenCon) didn't require me to have a photo taken, and I've never heard of any on the East Coast that do require attendees to have their photo taken.
EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-07-31 08:03 pm (UTC)When I was there you could attend a Con every weekend of the year without leaving the New York->Charleston area. No, I never made it to New England Cons, nor any Atlanta Cons.
Exceptions: WeaponsCon didn't use badges at all, just wristbands, and I don't seem to remember pictures on the badges at Disclave either. I never attended Darkover either, even though it was fairly close to me.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-07-31 09:29 pm (UTC)Darkover was the first con I ever attended, in 1984 (how Orwellian of me). They did not require photos on badges...nor photo ID of any sort to join the convention.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-07-31 09:34 pm (UTC)San Diego's Comic-Con (which has a budget in excess of $5 million dollars) doesn't even do pictures for members, only for staff. But then, they probably have a couple hundred staff, so pictures for them make sense.
And 20 years ago, what technology were they using to take pictures to put on members' badges? I would think that most of the available options would have been extremely cost-prohibitive for a con.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-07-31 10:50 pm (UTC)Anyway, the answer is polaroid. They'd stack 4 people up and take a polariod picture and cut it into 4ths. Larger cons would have 2-3 camera stations and would process fairly quickly.
Frankly, only WorldCon in my experience has as fast a sign-in line as EveCon/CastleCon did at the time. DC-area was very 9-5, and so you'd have a thousand people showing up between 6 and 8pm and you really had to process them *FAST*. Out here on the left coast people tend to show up all day long so the drive to improve the registration line has never gained any steam.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-07-31 10:59 pm (UTC)And quite frankly, if I was required to have my picture taken as part of my badge (for a fan-run type convention), like Kevin, I'd probably not attend that con. There are other, better ways, to prevent fake badges then slapping a picture on a badge.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 06:55 am (UTC)I'd be interested to hear what those reasons were.
Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 06:49 pm (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 07:06 pm (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 07:08 pm (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 07:14 pm (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 02:10 pm (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 03:43 am (UTC)Re: EveCon, CastleCon, BaltiCon ... DC-area Cons.
Date: 2007-08-01 06:15 pm (UTC)It may have been a goofy idea for a theme a con was doing one year.
As a contrast, when I worked for the government, my group co-ran the annual conputer security conference with NSA. This would be the early 90's and we never had more than a name and agency on the badges. Several agencies would buy a number of badges, put generic names on them and a different group from that agency would attend each day.
I attended a day of a Homeland Security conference about two months ago. They had spiffy I.D. computers, but no photos on the badges.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 07:04 pm (UTC)I'll bring my badge collection to the next convention
Date: 2007-07-31 08:04 pm (UTC)Re: I'll bring my badge collection to the next convention
Date: 2007-07-31 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: I'll bring my badge collection to the next convention
Date: 2007-07-31 09:12 pm (UTC)As a matter of fact, there might be conventions who have members who want a photo of themselves on their membership badges, for whatever reason. For them, I'd offer it as a value-added service.
But requiring it of all members seems Very Wrong to me.
Re: I'll bring my badge collection to the next convention
Date: 2007-07-31 10:46 pm (UTC)Perhaps the very same cons don't do this any more. If that was true, I'd be pleased because it would actually justify what my own thoughts on the matter are.
(which nobody has heard, nor will hear in those rant-driven forum)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:05 pm (UTC)Of course you'll get rants on this subject. You'll get rants in response to anything that's mindbogglingly stupid and offensive. Goes with the territory.
done.
Date: 2007-07-31 11:07 pm (UTC)Re: done.
Date: 2007-07-31 11:36 pm (UTC)Re: done.
Date: 2007-08-01 06:56 pm (UTC)As I've said elsewhere, I have no idea what Con-X-Treme did. I wasn't there, know nothing of their reasons for doing so... heck, haven't even heard of any reasons stated.
My thoughts on this topic never been expressed because people keep saying they know what I think and then run over me like a freight train. And then accuse me of all sorts of stuff, and my entire PoV on this topic has been "wow, you're a bit hot under the collar for this, I'd like to talk about it when you can be rational"
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 07:08 pm (UTC)Sustained applause!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:00 pm (UTC)I've never encountered this. Of course, I've only been going to East Coast conventions for 32 years, so what do I know.
Anyway, even if there have been 117 "East Coast" conventions that did this, it doesn't take a whole lot of reflection to realize that any such policy is liable to be, um, vigorously objected to by a really broad swathe of fans. In fact, I can hardly think of an arbitrary con policy more likely to unify cranky libertarians, feminists, Heinlein readers, Delany fans, masquerade fanciers, pro authors, propellerheads, LARPers, remote academics, and furry Gentle Ben/Huckleberry Hound slash cosplayers in a single geekgasm of prickly individualism.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:33 pm (UTC)I think we can easily add in "most convention runners," but silently. The above is really too elegant to muck with.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:58 pm (UTC)I've often been slightly annoyed when people who know me have to ask for my ID before giving me my badge -- or won't let me pick up my wife's badge without her and her ID. Fortunately, I've not run into a con that won't give me my, now, ten-year-old son's badge without ID, since the only ID he has is a passport that we don't regularly carry.
I'll admit that I very briefly thought about making photo badges available at DucKon, but as a keepsake only. I rejected this quickly because of the amount of extra time it would take, and not knowing if anyone would pay $1.00 for another photo badge. I don't think I considered making it mandatory, and would have sought much council before embarking on such a policy.
[1] DucKon 16 Registration Manual, June 2007, Ronald B. Oakes
no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 06:31 pm (UTC)*And yes, if you come back with your ID later, we will take the old badge and reissue one so you can get into the adults-only section of the Art Show or whatever.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 07:57 pm (UTC)This further demonstrates that membership badge design is a no-win scenario. With 5,000 members, no matter what you do, you'll find someone who is displeased with the design.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:25 pm (UTC)sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 07:55 pm (UTC)I absolutely believe that this is true. Not the change in priorities, but that it sets off your hot buttons. And that because your hot buttons are set off, you perceive it to be stratospheric.
In case you don't remember, I agree with you that "receipt for paid membership" was the second priority. I could even argue it as a THIRD, but then I would really confuse you since you can't seem to grasp the idea as "useful" but "not the most important thing ever".
Should you ever find yourself in a more relaxed mood regarding this issue, and willing to hear someone's thoughts as nothing more than their own experience with 20+ years of attending cons themselves, I'd enjoy discussing this with you. You've got quite a lot more experience than I do with this, and I wish the topic wasn't "too hot to touch" for you :-(
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:02 pm (UTC)If the convention organizer going to that much effort, then the only significant purpose a badge has to the organizer is as an admission token. None of the other reasons is significant. Indeed, I think in those circumstances they'd be better off using hospital wristbands anyway.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:10 pm (UTC)Now *THIS* is the meat of the argument, and well worth discussing. To have that discussion, we'd have to sit down with some real numbers and discuss them. Sounds like a good thing to do in person, because online dialogs can turn into rants too quickly. I'm not the best online person, I tend to come off too black/white...
If the convention organizer going to that much effort, then the only significant purpose a badge has to the organizer is as an admission token. None of the other reasons is significant.
And here's your reaction talking again. I have actually been to a con which used picture badges that were near-useless for identification. The organizer was having fun with some modern special effects, and *EVERYONE* had many a good laugh about the pictures over the weekend.
C'mon, Kevin, you're smarter than this. I really do hope you find a calm space about this topic someday. (more for my curiosity in the useful outcome of a discussion of this type than any practical effect, because the chance of getting me to be involved in running a Con is somewhere lower than the chance of Pres Bush giving a damn what the american public feel about his policies)
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:23 pm (UTC)I don't want anyone showing up who just wants a ticket to gawk at the funny-looking people. That's not why I started attending conventions, and I believe in running them to suit myself, to cater to a relatively like-minded set of people. Yes, I suppose that's "elitist" by one definition. But I don't get paid to organize conventions, so I don't see any reason not to try and organize them the way I want them organized.
____________________
*This doesn't mean there might not be pieces of a convention where a separate ticket might be required for various reasons, usually capacity-related. The general rule doesn't override specific exceptions.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:28 pm (UTC)Me too, and I agree with you on everything to some extent. But I think that rational discussion of this issue is impossible at this. Hopefully someday.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-08-01 03:55 am (UTC)If the person's name is printed in large clear type, then clearly "identifying to others" is an important point.
Suppose that were the most important issue, and preventing badge sharing/stealing were a close second. How would you do the latter?
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-08-01 05:37 am (UTC)I am not a paragon of virtue. I borrowed someone's badge at a convention at which I was not a member, because the person I was trying to find was in a controlled area, the person loaning me the badge couldn't leave the spot he was in, and this was pre-mobile-phone, so the easiest way to get him was to go into the controlled area, find him, and leave. And even then I felt very guilty about doing it.
If a convention organizer decides that photo badges serve that convention's goals in the way they want to run it, that's fine. After all, I'm all for the people doing the work being the ones to make the decisions. But they won't do it with my money or my participation. That's not the community of which I consider myself a member.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:06 pm (UTC)Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:12 pm (UTC)The first is bad if it's the only way of verifying you are who you are for the purpose of collecting your membership. The second is even worse.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:16 pm (UTC)I simply can't argue with things that are this black and white. There are a dozen different requirements for just about anything. Are all dozen of them the "most important thing ever?" Surely, not. Everything has levels of importance.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:26 pm (UTC)And by the way, I have been going to convention for 24 years. I have never been forced to have my photo taken before I could get in, and if I did find a convention that did that I would not attend.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:32 pm (UTC)crazy person alert!
Date: 2007-07-31 08:36 pm (UTC)First of all, I have no idea what Convention you think I ran. I've never ran one, and I've never even worked in one except as "Security" <- try to keep hotel damage to a minimum (east coast) and Tech (west coast). In neither situation was I involved in badge checking.
If you are somehow confused that I was involved with Con-X-Treme, not only was I NOT THERE, but due to a complete lack of marketing on their part I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS GOING ON!
Anyway, now that you've demonstrated quite clearly that rational conversation is impossible, I won't bother replying to you any more.
Re: crazy person alert!
Date: 2007-07-31 08:41 pm (UTC)I'm pretty sure I understand your justification of such a policy. If I was forced to do so, I could even construct a justification for it myself. I just strongly disagree with it for several reasons, on both principle and practical grounds.
Re: crazy person alert!
Date: 2007-07-31 10:37 pm (UTC)Hm. No, you don't. You've never heard my justication. Every time I have opened my mouth on the topic steam has started pouring out of your ears.
This is why I said I've love to talk with you about it... when rational conversation is possible.
Re: crazy person alert!
Date: 2007-07-31 08:47 pm (UTC)Now I'll happily admit that I got confused over your role in all this. I am, after all, several thousand miles away. But given that you didn't organize the event, let's frame things another way.
1. Did Con-X-Treme *require* attendees to have their photographs taken?
2. Do you approve of that being a *requirement* for convention membership?
3. If so, how do you justify your claim that having photos on badges is merely "useful"?
- Cheryl
Re: crazy person alert!
Date: 2007-07-31 10:43 pm (UTC)Cheryl, I'm sorry to have to learn this about you. I've always respected you, often read your stuff, and really thought I liked you. But when you pull out a statement like this:
So much for being willing to learn from others. Anyone who disagrees with you gets labeled "crazy" and you refuse to talk to them. Very adult of you.
...just a single comment after you said this:
That's a truly pathetic piece of weaseling.
Anyway, you didn't disagree with me. To disagree with me you'd have to hear my reasoning, which you haven't heard. In truth, you attacked me and you did that based on your misunderstanding and your bias on the situation. You had no real basis at all for your attack, especially given that my entire commentary from the beginning has mostly been "Let's stick to RATIONAL CONVERSATION".
Anyway, I'm done. I shouldn't have replied to this, but your obvious crap attempt to blame me for your own inconsidered comments was too much.
Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:35 pm (UTC)Re: sets off your hot buttons
Date: 2007-07-31 08:38 pm (UTC)Anyway, this conversation is quickly becoming irrational and I simply can't bother with that. I do welcome rational discussion at another time and place.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:14 pm (UTC)Just kidding. I hope.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:23 pm (UTC)Still, one of my all-time favourite badges was a leadership thingee I went to when I was in High School where they took a Polaroid, punched a hole in each corner and ran a string through it and then wrote your name in the white area. They managed to make those things for 3k+ attendees. It was really neat!
Chris
exactly.
Date: 2007-07-31 08:31 pm (UTC)Exactly. I started keeping my badges from east coast conventions because they looked nice and were good memories. I've recently considered tossing all of my west coast badges because a piece of paper with my name on it isn't much of a memory-grabber as the costume I was wearing at the particular event.
Re: exactly.
Date: 2007-07-31 10:32 pm (UTC)Which cons? You haven't, for whatever reason, mentioned any that you have a photo badge from. I understand you're busy and at work, but you're contradicting the 100 odd years of experience of the other people. And you started with "east coast cons" and have been whittled down to "greater New York area" (while calling people with other opinions than your own crazy and irrational).
After your blanket statements, I hope you will come back with the evidence of those names and years where it was a requirment.
Not the conventions where it was "a fun thing to do" - you're stating it was a requirement, and that's what we're interested in finding out, since no one in this thread but you has that memory.
Re: exactly.
Date: 2007-07-31 11:00 pm (UTC)And no, I'm not whittling down. Kevin wrote up my statements incorrectly. I said "pretty much every east coast cons I attended used picture badges".
I cannot, nor will I, try to describe what *EVERY* east coast con did, and attempts to make me responsible for that are just a waste of time.
And then you go on to demand evidence, again 2 hours after I proposed to bring my badge collection to the next convention. Yeah, there's evidence. I already offered it.
And finally, I *NEVER* stated anything about requirements. Kevin paraphrased my comments and then went on to rant about requirements. I said that the east coast cons had badges with photos. That's it. I've never argued here that they *should* be required, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
All of my arguements here have been of the same thing: this could be fun as a rational conversation someday. Your inane attacks on me for not posting answers to things I answered hours ago just proves how irrational the conversation is.
Re: exactly.
Date: 2007-08-01 05:29 pm (UTC)Also - if Kevin misquoted you, and you refuse his offer of correcting his mistatement, then you're the one accusing and going off in a huff.
And if you can't tell an inquiry from an accusation, I guess you're too sensitive on this subject and not worth talking too about it until you calm down.
I seem to have heard that somewhere before.
Re: exactly.
Date: 2007-08-01 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:47 pm (UTC)Cons ask for sorts of things that might be useful to them. To go back to a recent post here, they often ask for email addresses. But if they made giving an email address a requirement of membership some people might not attend. I've also seen cons try to force members to have their real name clearly on the front of their badge. That might be useful, but again it upsets some people. I could go on with a bunch of other examples, but all of these are things that, while useful, are not deal breakers. You can run a perfectly successful con while allowing people an opt out.
So the real question is not, "shall we have photos on badges?", it is, "shall we require photos on badges?" That's a pretty important distinction.
And then, if we do require it, what is the reason? Are we saying, "all members must have fun the way we want them to?" Are we saying, "it is Necessary for Security?" Because if you are going to tell your members that they *must* do something that some of them may find distasteful, you'd better have a good reason for it or you'll get thoroughly yelled at.
- Cheryl
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 10:13 pm (UTC)Identifying ourselves to each other as an aid to communication is my highest-and-best use of a membership badge. On the hypothetical 100-point scale, I'd put it at about 50, with maybe 30 for secure admission token, and 10 each for memorabilia and utility.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 08:58 pm (UTC)But, let's pretend someone is playing "telephone." I know one procedure encouraged at many conventions is "you may need a photo ID to pick up your badge." It almost sounds like someone took this common East Coast custom and twisted it.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:04 pm (UTC)The funny thing is that I don't object to a photo ID for pickup requirement as long as it's not the only requirement and that any of the other sensible ones, particularly "personally known to the person doing registration," are in place.
The purpose of requiring photo ID is not to require photo ID for its own sake. It is to establish your right to collect your membership credentials. Anything that does this in a reasonable way is good. Seems to me a lot of people lose sight of this.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:15 pm (UTC)If the reg staff person knows you, they hand you a badge. Occasionally, at cons where underage drinking has been an issue, I've been required to show a photo ID in order to get an "OK to drink" mark on my badge. That's silly (particularly when the person is obviously over 21), but...
If the reg staff person doesn't know you, requesting a photo ID protects attendees, so I've never objected to showing photo ID in that case.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 10:19 pm (UTC)A Seattle Westercon (10 years ago, IIRC) required a photo ID and would not take a PR a proof of membership. (I was used to many conventions that did allow this, and I had it with me, but left my purse in the hotel room.) They claimed that the membership was worth $XXX dollars and they wouldn't want to give the badge to just anyone. I didn't quite understand the reasoning that someone would steal a PR out of an mailbox on the East Coast just to scam a membership. I think they finally gave give, or I found someone who knew me to vouch for who I was rather than go back to my room.
Lunacon policy was that they would send postcards that people were supposed to bring with them to registration before getting their badge, but one year they were running late and the postcards were never sent out.
I was working Reg that year, and while some were prepared with ID, many were confused about what to do. We created a policy on the spot: "show something in your pocket with your name printed on it."
So we got library cards, school IDs, bills, keyrings. One person was checking to see what they had and in his pockets was a memo pad printed "From the desk of Joe Phan." (his name, not Joe Phan...) I gave him his badge based on that.
The point is to have some confidence that the person getting the badge is the one who should have it.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:26 pm (UTC)I went to a lot of EveCons and CastleCons (Washington DC area) in the late 80's through mid 90's, and photo ID con badges were considered routine. The only other large east-coast con I went to in those days was Balticon, which did not. Have not gone to a con in that area in ~10 years.
I worked security/door guard, and I was supposed to check the face on the badge against the face on the person. The utility of this was highly irregular, as you can probably guess.
I also worked registration making the badges. There were typically 2 or 3 photo stations. Each had 4 chairs, two high, two low. People sat in the chairs. A photo was taken with a polaroid on a tripod. A square punch was used to punch out each face. The photo was stuck to a square in the center of the badge blank (badges printed at reg) and laminated. Since it was a polaroid, there were no negatives, so the con did not end up with pictures of the attendees.
My understanding is that this was SOP at government/DOD/big corps that needed photo ID's in the pre-digital days. The gear (camera, tripod, punch, laminator) were all government surplus. Most of the con staff and many of the attendees worked in places that required badges like this (presumably non-SF convention organizations would take more than one photo and keep the extras). Nobody really thought much of it, it was pretty much taken for granted.
Have not seen photo badges used anyplace else. I do not remember if fen had to put their real names on the badge or not, nor do I recall what sort of ID was required to pick up a badge.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:03 pm (UTC)None. Bruce routinely told people who had privacy concerns that he really didn't care what name they wrote down.
Remember that in the 80s "walker IDs" were not common, and a large amount of the incoming cyberpunk crowd didn't drive cars yet ;-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 10:20 pm (UTC)Perhaps my memory is not what it should be after nearly 4 decades of con going, but I have never encountered photo ID badges for those conventions.
Comic cons, Star Trek, and other media cons I can not speak on.
Feel free to quote me on your LJ ...
Michael Walsh
[Posted from an e-mail]
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 10:44 pm (UTC)My fan name is on my badge, that's as much of a "papers plz" as a photo, IMHO. A true anonymous badge is just a theater ticket. Anything on the badge which identifies the owner is "papers plz". Photo ID has not been around all that long, it used to be a thumb print instead which was used.
You use your photo in your LJ icons all the time, so I know you're not objecting to letting fandom know what you look like. I'm curious why the photo trips your trigger. What is it about a photo which takes and already-personalized ID to a stratospheric level?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 05:20 am (UTC)I agree it probably isn't worth the effort it would take, but that's just "arguing over the price".
no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 05:30 am (UTC)And no, it's not actually a privacy-rights issue. Not only do I expect that my photo will be taken randomly at a convention (even if I'm just passing through), but I have no concerns about it and am usually happy to stop for a photo if someone wants to take it. I simply don't think it's a reasonable condition of purchasing my membership, that's all, and, just possibly short of a Worldcon, I would never patronize a convention that made it a requirement.
(And if a Worldcon ever tries to pull such a stunt, I'll do everything I can to prohibit the practice through the political process, even though it means that at least once I'll have to live with the convention doing it. But that's a case of working within the system, which is something I've been doing since 1984. Sometimes I even get my way.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:03 pm (UTC)Boskone, Lunacon, JersetDevilCon, Arisia etc etc
I have seen this at some cons for costumers though, photo in costume.
And also as said above artist badges.
I think the topic is dead at this point.
Done.
Date: 2007-07-31 11:09 pm (UTC)The vast majority of you need to take a step back and chill out.
I won't be discussing anything serious with any of you, anytime in the future.
Re: Done.
Date: 2007-07-31 11:17 pm (UTC)Now you appear to have taken the attitude that everyone who disagrees with you has to "chill out." Perhaps the depth of emotion on this subject ought to tell you something about how strongly people feel about it. It's one of the few things that nearly everyone here seems to be able to agree upon. And if you've been reading my LJ very long, you may notice that sycophantic agreement with me isn't really a common thread here.
If you think such a procedure was justified, you should justify it. If you don't think it was justified, then why did you speak up for groups that did such a stupid thing?
Re: Done.
Date: 2007-08-01 07:44 am (UTC)"I'm right. I'm so obviously right that I don't have to justify myself to you morons. And anyone who disagrees with me is a raving lunatic who I will refuse to speak to."
I'm afraid you are not going to convince many people that way.
- Cheryl
no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 05:42 am (UTC)Both were run for all their years by the same couple and to the best of my recollection there wasn't a lot of membership overlap; I don't think that Bruce and Cheryl even went to other cons in the years I knew about them. IIRC these were promoted as being a place where people could connect as 'family' rather than being misfits elsewhere and had pretty much their own culture. (Despite the way that sounds they weren't actually a cross between Charles Manson and an animated Christmas special.)
While not exactly SF conventions they are/were closely related just with the emphasis being on being a social group. I recall that Bruce and Cheryl also had regular gatherings at their home, Movie Night, Lego party, etc. I think that they were mostly fan run but have no real idea.
Elspeth Kovar
[Posted by e-mail through Kevin due to LJ being wonky]
no subject
Date: 2007-08-01 09:38 pm (UTC)I really don't see much point in the badges EXCEPT to prove who paid and who didn't. I conceal mine so it doesn't get photographed, showing it when needed. I don't collect ribbons. And I usually put my Klingon name on the badge, if possible.