|If you don't know what this is about, don't worry.
||[Oct. 5th, 2009|09:21 pm]
In order to dispel any doubt that there may be over my opinion on the matter:
Firstly, It's my firm belief that the correct response of a convention committee hearing criticism of their convention, or its current or previous committees, is to prove those critics wrong by running a great event.
Secondly, it seems to me that banning your critic from your event, refusing to enter into any online discussion on the matter, and refusing to discuss it with any other persons, seems (on the face of it) to be a little odd.
Thirdly and finally, I'm trying to remember any occasion when a committee has banned a critic and then refused to discuss it, and then gone on to find that their public image has improved in any way. No success yet.
Anonymous comment spam:
2011-01-29 19:21 (from 220.127.116.11)
2011-03-05 20:59 (from 18.104.22.168)
Funny thing is, this isn't the only con that's heading that way...
Another recent con was a first event, and everyone returned from it happy and full of praise for the organisers.
Afterwards there was some discussion about how jolly it had been, how great the organisers had been, and how to make it even better in the future. There was some discussion as to food, kids, price of fish, and ticket numbers for next year. All conducted in the most remarkable jolly of atmospheres, for the organisers had indeed done a great job and thanks for them was prolific and sincere.
...For which the main organiser has angrily banned all discussion of next year's planning: the secret committee will duly tell us what's on offer, and we can either book or not. But in the meantime, no discussion or feedback upon it. He has now started threatening to ban people from next year's event, for having the temerity to do so!
In just two weeks, the organisers have gone from receiving prolific praise to total stunned silence. At least a few people are now even questioning whether they want to go next year, if that's the attitude that they're going to encounter. Certainly the forum itself is a far quieter place, for fear of invoking The Wrath.
Now *that* intriques me, either here, or by private message, can you let me know which con and where it was being discussed?
Not quite a "con" in the same sf- sense, but a moment's research along the obvious route
will find it, and web searching will turn up the related web forum.
Oh dear me, that's sad.
And there was one a couple of weeks back not that far east from your profiled position of which I heard nothing but praise, and to which we might well have wanted to go if there was a repeat (even though it's quite a distance from East Anglia). I hope it wasn't that one.
If we're thinking of the same con it wouldn't surprise me. Knowing that there were already people angry at having their offers of help rebuffed and ignored in the run up to this year's.
(Using an obvious sock here. Not for any reason more nefarious than not having the energy at pesent to devote to potentially getting involved in a big fannish row with the tantrums and the grudges and the satirical fanzines and oye....).
If nothing else, that has to be the most wonderfully esoteric name for a sockpuppet account ever. Kudos!