Log in

No account? Create an account
If you don't know what this is about, don't worry. - Songs of innocence and of experience [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Douglas Spencer

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Friends| (full) (people) (communities) (both) (feeds) (friendsfriends) ]
[Using| (new) (rec) (clu) (inb) (tag) (bot) (adm) (mod) (poll) ]
[Other| (DJ) (DW) (IJ) (JF) (Scribbld) ]
[Me| (AoOO) (eF) (FB) (GP) (LI) (Tu) (Tw) (Wk) ]
[Links| (AVDAR) (Exchange) (il_calmo) (LGCM) (ZZ9) ]

If you don't know what this is about, don't worry. [Oct. 5th, 2009|09:21 pm]
Douglas Spencer

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
2011-03-05 20:59 (from

[User Picture]From: dougs
2009-10-07 09:22 am (UTC)
I've held off from replying to this comment for a bit, to see what others have said, but now:

Yes, indeed, he's been known to be an arse occasionally. He has strong opinions, and he's not shy about expressing them. He cares about things, and is keen that people get them right. As I've said elsewhere, I warmly congratulate him and seek to do the same myself, sometimes with the same techniques. If we excluded people from conventions on those qualifications, conventions would be very nearly empty. I'd certainly have picked up a ban or two. But we don't -- in an ideal world we talk to them, explore what the problem is, and then both parties try to do better in the future.

> nice conventions like Redemption!

Redemption (aside from being the name of an episode of Blakes 7) is a technical term from Christianity and other religions -- it's the process whereby someone who's been a major arse in their younger life and who has managed to turn things around is allowed to set aside the consequences of their former actions and is accepted back into the company of civilised persons on an equal footing. Pádraig (although no longer Catholic) qualifies wholeheartedly for redemption, and has done for a long time.

James Brophy knows Pádraig from beforehand, fails to recognise those changes, and is unable to set aside his outdated feelings -- which is very sad.

The ban was introduced a couple of days ago. Since then Pádraig has behaved in a measured, polite and enquiring manner, while James has lost his cool all over Cheryl's blog and left the committee. The remaining committee don't seem to know quite how to handle the situation they've been left with.

If you get the chance to meet Pádraig, take it. I think you'd get on well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: annafdd
2009-10-07 09:42 am (UTC)
What he said. With particular mention of how classily Padraig has behaved and what a swell fellow he is to meet.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: captainlucy
2009-10-07 10:06 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: davesangel
2009-10-08 08:41 pm (UTC)
Apologies for hijacking your journal, given that I think we've met only once (and very briefly!) in the past, at They Came and Shaved Us...a fab convention all round.

Anyway, I'm a good friend of James Brophy, and was directed here by a few people who don't have LJ accounts and who didn't want to spam your journal with anonymous comments or anything like that. Without wishing to add fuel to any sort of fire, I would like to say that he's one of the nicest and most dependable people I know, I've known him since 2001, and I think it's a little unfair for so many people to be making judgements on him and how he has expressed his feelings (for example), when a lot of them don't know him (and some of these people don't even know Padraig that well either), because none of us - no matter how close we are to either James or Padraig or the Octocon committee - can know for sure what has happened in the past.

Again, sorry for randomly appearing on your journal - and the good news is that it's all resolved, so hopefully everyone can move on and make it a great con :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: annafdd
2009-10-08 09:34 pm (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have seen a joint statement from P and Octocon in which they say that they have talked it over, each has grown wiser, each has done some thinkin', and the ban has been rescinded and it would be nice to draw a line under it now please?

To which I will gladly subscribe. I am really happy that this incident has been resolved amicably.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: davesangel
2009-10-08 09:37 pm (UTC)
Yup - I was actually referring to that bit when I said that it appeared that the situation was resolved, which is indeed good news :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dougs
2009-10-09 06:44 am (UTC)
I'm sort of half-convinced we met on another occasion -- I think you were at a Novacon once on James White business.

For what it's worth, I've met JB a few times, He's been to a couple of British cons and I've been to a couple of Irish ones, and from those occasions I remember him as being a sound and friendly chap. I'm sure the history between him and P is more complicated than many of us appreciate.

I'm very glad that Octocon and Pádraig have come to an understanding and that things are moving on. Warmest thanks to James Bacon for helping both sides find some common ground.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)