FA+
Shop
On the Dorsai and FurFright
12 years ago
I'm pretty sure this will be all I have to say about this.
It has been alleged that, last FurFright, certain members of the Dorsai allegedly may have treated certain congoers in ways which were, shall we say, dubious. Before you say -anything- to me about this, consider the vast number of conditionals I threw into that sentence. Also consider that I was at the convention and personally did not witness any of it.
I wouldn't be saying anything about this at all given that it happened last October, but certain individuals on the fringes of my social network won't let the damn thing die, and one downside of Assuming Good Faith about people is that I didn't feel entirely inclined to completely dismiss their concerns out of hand...just mostly inclined.
why?
1) Because they came off as going right for the torches and pitchforks. You know how they expressed their concerns? By bitching on Twitter. By starting a damn half-assed petition to have the Dorsai banned from the con. By complaining about the whole thing on FA. You know what I didn't see them doing, or even claiming that they did? Contacting the FurFright staff or the Dorsai themselves. Because that would be rational.
2) Because the people who I directly know who were involved this are, in my experience, a bit impulsive/hot-headed and prone to jumping to and acting on jumped-to conclusions. Mind you, that's not always a bad thing...I can be a bit impulsive myself. But if I'm going to sound a war cry, I'd like to make sure I have ample justification for doing so.
3) Because, apparently unlike these people, I actually talked with people involved with the con and got their story, which basically amounted to, "Nobody's contacted us through official channels, and the people complaining the loudest are also the ones who violated the convention's Code of Conduct".
4) Because, in my opinion of course, even if certain members of the Dorsai did behave unprofessionally, it's retarded to jump from that to "Ban the Dorsai from FurFright!!!" If you really want me to support that type of radical action, you better make a damn persuasive argument to substantiate your case. Oddly, nobody who I've heard complaining has offered to do so.
Anyway, I tire of even talking about this. I've had one person on Twitter going back and forth with me about the whole thing and claiming that they tried to talk with the FF staff, but thus far they've not responded to my offers to talk with them more directly (i.e. not on Twitter) about the whole thing.
So yeah, if you've got a good argument to make about this whole thing, then make it. If you just want to stir the pot, I've got little use for your drama-llamaing.
It has been alleged that, last FurFright, certain members of the Dorsai allegedly may have treated certain congoers in ways which were, shall we say, dubious. Before you say -anything- to me about this, consider the vast number of conditionals I threw into that sentence. Also consider that I was at the convention and personally did not witness any of it.
I wouldn't be saying anything about this at all given that it happened last October, but certain individuals on the fringes of my social network won't let the damn thing die, and one downside of Assuming Good Faith about people is that I didn't feel entirely inclined to completely dismiss their concerns out of hand...just mostly inclined.
why?
1) Because they came off as going right for the torches and pitchforks. You know how they expressed their concerns? By bitching on Twitter. By starting a damn half-assed petition to have the Dorsai banned from the con. By complaining about the whole thing on FA. You know what I didn't see them doing, or even claiming that they did? Contacting the FurFright staff or the Dorsai themselves. Because that would be rational.
2) Because the people who I directly know who were involved this are, in my experience, a bit impulsive/hot-headed and prone to jumping to and acting on jumped-to conclusions. Mind you, that's not always a bad thing...I can be a bit impulsive myself. But if I'm going to sound a war cry, I'd like to make sure I have ample justification for doing so.
3) Because, apparently unlike these people, I actually talked with people involved with the con and got their story, which basically amounted to, "Nobody's contacted us through official channels, and the people complaining the loudest are also the ones who violated the convention's Code of Conduct".
4) Because, in my opinion of course, even if certain members of the Dorsai did behave unprofessionally, it's retarded to jump from that to "Ban the Dorsai from FurFright!!!" If you really want me to support that type of radical action, you better make a damn persuasive argument to substantiate your case. Oddly, nobody who I've heard complaining has offered to do so.
Anyway, I tire of even talking about this. I've had one person on Twitter going back and forth with me about the whole thing and claiming that they tried to talk with the FF staff, but thus far they've not responded to my offers to talk with them more directly (i.e. not on Twitter) about the whole thing.
So yeah, if you've got a good argument to make about this whole thing, then make it. If you just want to stir the pot, I've got little use for your drama-llamaing.
I'm sure some people (myself included) have had run-ins with the Dorsai, although mine have been frustrating events more than "end of the world" style. But the problem with these types of events is they are personal anecdotes. Without proof you have little reason to believe me, and I don't blame you for not, because the types of events I experienced, personally, are by nature not able to be proven, because they have no witnesses (each was an interaction between me and two different, rude Dorsai members only). It, of course, doesn't invalidate my personal opinion of them, but I know I haven't made a convincing argument for you to believe me, nor feel the same as I do, either.
I do recognize the con's requirement for better standards of proof than personal anecdote.
I still think the con should do it's due diligence in search of the truth, even for things they hear through unofficial channels. Any anecdote of Dorsai abuse, official or not, alleged or proven, should trouble them deeply enough to investigate, instead of dismissing it on the technicality that it was not reported officially. That is not the action of someone who is concerned with finding the truth.
Whether the con goers were violating the Code of Conduct or not is irrelevant, as this is a logical fallacy of ad hominem. They should ignore the person who is speaking it and address the assertion the con goer is putting forth directly. If it proves without merit or without evidence (like my anecdotes do) it should be easy to tackle the assertion, instead of relying on an argumentative fallacy. Relying on this fallacy can, in some people's minds, give it more credence. "He ignored the question," in politics would start to cause mistrust in some voters.
My signing the petition wasn't an assertion of their actions were so egregious that they should be banned. It was simply a vote stating I wish someone else did the security, and this petition's end result would be just that if enacted. Thinking back, it was done on emotion. I'm sure most of the people who signed the petition didn't feel as strongly as the petition organizers. They might simply be like me, and wish we had someone else. More of a motion of no confidence, than an outright impeachment. Those "luke-warm" people probably make up the majority of signers (personal belief I have no facts), and are piggybacking on the petition democratic process to voice this luke warm belief.
I know we had an argument that went sour on this before. I hope this one doesn't re-open anything. I'll be a FF this year in the main hotel. And conventions are still generally positive experiences for me.
Yeah...if I believed everything furs told me...well...there's a tragedy waiting to happen.
I think it's entirely possible that at times the Dorsai have been less than professional. I think it's possible there've been cases where they were -severely- unprofessional. but I also think they and the presiding con should be given a reasonable chance to address the problems on their own before it comes even close to the levels it did at the end of last year. And not to sound like a cynical jackass, but that whole thing was just...pardon the expression...so typically furry.
I'm certainly sorry you've had any difficulties with the Dorsai. The one significant experience I had with them was when I left my camera bag (with zoom lens inside it) in a panel room and it ended up with them. They asked a few not-unreasonable questions to confirm that I wasn't trying to pull anything and I had the bag back in short order. So...yeah, if people I don't even know are going to say they've been horrible, I don't feel I can accept that without some proof.
Actually there was the time I had to take off a leash because I was "advertising", but whatever... :p
I'd prefer not to analyze this on the level of whether I believe anyone's lying (though there have been some accusations of that), but rather just...we're talking about people I don't know well, we're talking about fairly serious allegations, and we're talking about, for better or worse, a community that unfortunately seems to attract a large number of people who (in my opinion, anyhow) tend to exhibit a high degree of emotionalism and can often, not necessarily intentionally, be flexible with regards to an objective description of a situation. In such cases I don't think it's unreasonable to impose a stronger burden of proof on someone than "it's true because I say it is" but I acknowledge that it can suck to be on the receiving end of that, and I do sympathize with anyone who actually was mistreated but has a lack of evidence on which they can act. That said, when people decide to vent their frustrations as they did they only undermine their own credibility and make a bad situation worse, and...well, if I could tell the entire fandom that, I would.
Regarding what the con may or may not have done with regards to these allegations...and I believe they would have investigated them regardless of whether the accusers had themselves behaved poorly...we really don't know what has or has not happened, so i guess to some degree it's a question of how much faith you're willing to have in the people in charge. People who want information about that should contact the con staff directly. Since I don't really want to focus on this whole thing more than I have, I'm not inclined to pursue it beyond knowing that the con staff ia aware of the situation. I guess it's also possible I'm a bit biased, as my experiences with the con chairman have regularly been quite positive and I know -he's- tired of talking about the whole thing.
There may be a legitimate argument to be made that the con staff should be more transparent, but for better or worse there's also a legitimate argument to be made for the approach that they're talking right now. My impression is that they discussed...possibly a lot...what they felt would be the best means of handling the whole thing.
FWIW, I did ask Belic for permission to reprint his exact words to me regarding the whole thing, but he asked that I not do so, and I'm respecting his wishes as far as that goes.
Frankly I don't know what the petition was designed to accomplish other than allowing people to vent. It had no power over the convention and people who were entirely unfamiliar with the situation could vote based solely on the word of biased parties. The fact that it was created so soon after the con also made it seem obvious that whoever created it had not had a real dialog with the people in a position to actually do something about the situation, and I think at this point I've made it obvious how much that sticks in my craw. :p
Yeah, I'll admit our earlier discussion of this was...um...let's call it discouraging. I'm glad to be hearing from you though, and have no problems with your response. Thanks for getting in touch, and I look forward to seeing you at the con. And I'm glad you've been having good con experiences overall. :)
Here's a few things I've noticed when people complain about the Dorsai:
1) There's very little in the way of specifics. It's almost always vague accusations against "the Dorsai" and not any particular individual.
2) There's very little in the way of firsthand experience. A lot of people signing that petition admit they haven't personally had any problems and are going based on hearsay and rumors.
3) There's very little in the way of credibility. They say the Dorsai just like to throw their weight around and harass people for "no reason". This is patently ridiculous. The Dorsai are busy enough at conventions dealing with troublemakers---the idea that they need to create more of them is absurd.
4) There's very little in the way of alternatives. They say to replace the Dorsai, but they don't tell you what a crew of, say, 40 security guards at time-and-a-half for an entire weekend will cost the convention.
Bottom line: The Dorsai are hard-working fans who keep us safe and ensure conventions run smoothly. They've been doing a good job at this for years, which is why conventions continue to bring them back. There's a small group of people who has a grudge against them, and a small group of people who are just rumormongering.