Support NeoGAF

[ultron87]

We really need to protect the 9 women who go to comic con.

The attendees were 40 percent women in 2012, probably more this year.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/a-media-buyers-guide-to-comic-con/

 

[789shadow]

There are several posts that appear to be saying that since we can't perfectly stop harassment, it's not worth having rules against it. I don't think I really need to point out how asinine this logic is.

I'm certainly not saying it isn't worth it. Far from it. However, I suspect a large change in the attitudes towards women at these cons and in fan communities is probably the only way the incidence of such behavior is going to dramatically drop like it needs to.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

That's not the point of my example at all.

The point is that large masses of people can be moved towards certain kinds of behavior with the right mental cues.

I still don't get the comparison.

Having signs that say "Ask before taking pictures of specific people" may help somewhat, but comparing seas of people flooding a convention floor to museum crowds seems a bit off. Much easier to monitor a museum crowd.

 

[Shouta]

Designating areas where photography is allowed would probably be the best choice and to post folks at prime gathering spots to keep folks from taking pictures would be the best solution. As I recall, most big conventions in Japan like Comiket or TGS have designated areas where you can take photos and as a result, most people congregate there. It makes it easier to regulate. They don't stop photos being taken elsewhere but fan culture has adjusted to these rules so it doesn't happen as much.

But then, Japanese culture and etiquette are pretty different from the US.

 

[Devolution]

I
You just said it wasn't a public event, by the way.

Either way, who is to say they aren't paying for security and preventing plenty of "other shit?" I don't know their security detail, but I doubt they take things lightly.

You would need a security guy for like every 20 people to enforce a no photography policy. Having 5,000+ security personnel would be a surefire way to kill the atmosphere of the convention.

They are taking things lightly if the same complaints decades old keep popping up. Hello.

 

[besada]

To add another voice to the conversation:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/24/san-diego-comic-con-addendum/

However, SDCC still doesn’t actually say on its site (or otherwise as far as I can see) what it thinks harassing behavior is. Which is a really big problem in my book — it leaves no guidance for attendees. Not all harassing behavior is as blatant as a grope; attendees on the receiving end of unwanted attention may not be aware that their harassment qualifies under SDCC standards — nor in the absence of guidance may they be convinced, if they feel harassed, that SDCC will agree with them. That’s a huge hole. I understand SDCC reasoning for not offering that guidance, but with due respect for the thinking behind it, it’s flat-out wrong in my opinion. Not having that language makes the convention less safe, not more. It’s the reason you won’t see me at the convention center or on the floor of the show.

 

[Mononoke]

It is ignorant. "Females" are not a hive mind. Some women dislike showing skin and don't mess with that stuff. Others are perfectly comfortable dressing up as Power Girl and posing at cons. It changes on an individual basis. What matters is that you respect each person's boundaries.



What's wrong with any of this?

You come off as really condescending and making assumptions. Who cares if someone is dressing up to look sexy vs. "being a true cosplayer"?



They don't "deserve" to be there or they're ruining it for everyone else... or something.

Yeah I realized after the fact that my post was really stupid. I think, it's important to talk about issues of sexism and objectification, and the want for better representation. But it's not cool to judge people, or say they should view sexuality (or their own sexuality for that matter) a certain way.

I guess I was looking at it, from too broad of a perspective. This is why I really like posting on GAF though. I do feel like I learn a lot from you guys, and I'm always open to discuss my view points, and have them challenged. Although in this case, it wasn't so much a set in stone view point, just more of a confused perspective I had I guess.

Still, I think the one thing we can all agree on, is that no one should ever be harassed or touched (without consent) -- ever. And just because you dress sexy, doesn't mean it gives you the right to touch someone.

Designating areas where photography is allowed would probably be the best choice and to post folks at prime gathering spots to keep folks from taking pictures would be the best solution. As I recall, most big conventions in Japan like Comiket or TGS have designated areas where you can take photos and as a result, most people congregate there. It makes it easier to regulate. They don't stop photos being taken elsewhere but fan culture has adjusted to these rules so it doesn't happen as much.

But then, Japanese culture and etiquette are pretty different from the US.

Great post. Honestly, I think this would benefit everyone too. I feel like there is too much clutter with people trying to take photos. So not only would this curve harassment, but it would also make these kind of cons run smoother for everyone else attending.

 

[Mesoian]

There are several posts that appear to be saying that since we can't perfectly stop harassment, it's not worth having rules against it. I don't think I really need to point out how asinine this logic is.

But at the same time, we have to shine a big spotlight on how asinine a "no cameras period" rule would be as well as, even if you put that into practice, there would be absolutely no meaningful way of enforcing it. We're looking at to extremes on both ends of the spectrum and neither would be beneficial to anyone involved.

Part of having an iron clad, set in stone guide on how to deal with floor level harassment means that the people involved actually have to be able to do their jobs without swiping at shadows.

Designating areas where photography is allowed would probably be the best choice and to post folks at prime gathering spots to keep folks from taking pictures would be the best solution. As I recall, most big conventions in Japan like Comiket or TGS have designated areas where you can take photos and as a result, most people congregate there. It makes it easier to regulate. They don't stop photos being taken elsewhere but fan culture has adjusted to these rules so it doesn't happen as much.

But then, Japanese culture and etiquette are pretty different from the US.

While true, this does NOTHING to stop creeper shots. If anything the creeper shots that come out of those photos only areas at comiket are WAY more extreme than anything I've ever seen come out of an american shoot. Those photo circles are INTENSE.

 

[SliceSabre]

Designating areas where photography is allowed would probably be the best choice and to post folks at prime gathering spots to keep folks from taking pictures would be the best solution. As I recall, most big conventions in Japan like Comiket or TGS have designated areas where you can take photos and as a result, most people congregate there. It makes it easier to regulate. They don't stop photos being taken elsewhere but fan culture has adjusted to these rules so it doesn't happen as much.

But then, Japanese culture and etiquette are pretty different from the US.

This sounds like an excellent idea actually.

 

[J10]

There are several posts that appear to be saying that since we can't perfectly stop harassment, it's not worth having rules against it. I don't think I really need to point out how asinine this logic is.

I think you do, or else they wouldn't be saying it.

 

[Haly]

To add another voice to the conversation:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/24/san-diego-comic-con-addendum/

Mmmm yes, the administration itself needs to step up and take a stance on this issue if we're going to get anywhere at all.

 

[kirblar]

Restricting photos just isn't a viable option - it infringes on a positive experience for the vast majority of con-goers (taking photos of the batmobile!) in a way that's not enforceable due to the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, game systems, etc.

I would suspect the Patron to Bouncer ratio at a strip club is exponentially lower than the Attendee to Staff ratio at a con, and that the biggest issue is that they simply aren't wielding a big enough stick man-power wise in order to resolve problematic situations as they emerge.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I think it's ludicrous to try and enforce what is or is not an acceptable photograph; that would mean many things to many different people. Therefore, I have to agree that most likely the best method of protecting cosplayers would be to ban nonconsensual photography altogether.

And if you honestly feel that your right to take pictures without asking supersedes cosplayers rights to not feel violated, then you're part of the problem.

 

[besada]

But at the same time, we have to shine a big spotlight on how asinine a "no cameras period" rule would be as well as, even if you put that into practice, there would be absolutely no meaningful way of enforcing it. We're looking at to extremes on both ends of the spectrum and neither would be beneficial to anyone involved.

I think you're largely wrong about the difficulty regarding enforcement, and this is from someone who has been an enforcer at multiple conventions, so I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Volimar]

To add another voice to the conversation:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/24/san-diego-comic-con-addendum/

I love Scalzi and agree 100%

 

[Devolution]

But at the same time, we have to shine a big spotlight on how asinine a "no cameras period" rule would be as well as, even if you put that into practice, there would be absolutely no meaningful way of enforcing it. We're looking at to extremes on both ends of the spectrum and neither would be beneficial to anyone involved.

Part of having an iron clad, set in stone guide on how to deal with floor level harassment means that the people involved actually have to be able to do their jobs without swiping at shadows.

This is silly. They have no camera/photography in plenty of places that track in scores of people. It's called cultivating a culture and having security to reinforce the new norm.

 

[Halo 2]

The sexual harassment stuff should obviously not be tolerated anywhere. But Comic-Con is not "the public" in the way that the sidewalk or the park are brought up as examples of a photographer's right to take photos. People are paying to go to a privately reserved space. If Comic-Con as an organization has rules in place to respect people who don't wish to have their photos taken at random (and it probably should if it doesn't).

Good point.

 

[Mesoian]

Restricting photos just isn't a viable option - it infringes on a positive experience for the vast majority of con-goers (taking photos of the batmobile!) in a way that's not enforceable due to the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, game systems, etc.

I would suspect the Patron to Bouncer ratio at a strip club is exponentially lower than the Attendee to Staff ratio at a con, and that the biggest issue is that they simply aren't wielding a big enough stick man-power wise in order to resolve problematic situations as they emerge.

Totally. It doesn't help that, at any one entrance at SDCC, a member of security may be talking to, looking at, and taking orders from 20 different people at a time at any one given moment.

 

[Shouta]

While true, this does NOTHING to stop creeper shots. If anything the creeper shots that come out of those photos only areas at comiket are WAY more extreme than anything I've ever seen come out of an american shoot. Those photo circles are INTENSE.

Nothing stops creeper shots and even full time staff looking for it isn't enough to stop it. Bringing the maturity level of the con-goers and understanding of this stuff is the only way really to put a dent in that.

 

[Kinyou]

And here's an idea: Why not disallow photography at the event altogether, with the exception of photo areas for cosplayers and photographers. If you don't want shots taken, you stay out of the photography area. It makes enforcement much easier, because anyone taking shots outside of the accepted space is in violation.

That sounds actually pretty good.

People will complain that it infringes on their rights to take photographs freely. I don't agree with them, but they will.

They're already accepting that they're not allowed to film/photograph during certain panels

 

[Haly]

A "no cameras" rule doesn't need to be perfect and all encompassing. Just the existence and visibility of it will dissuade some of the milder creep behavior from happening and make it so that attendees are more self-conscious of their own behavior.

 

[Volimar]

I'm actually surprised they don't have paid for photography passes. They monetize pretty much everything else.

Ooh, look what just happened that isn't connected to this in any way.

U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 

[Mononoke]

Nothing stops creeper shots and even full time staff looking for it isn't enough to stop it. Bringing the maturity level of the con-goers and understanding of this stuff is the only way really to put a dent in that.

At the very least, we could make the overall experience better. Just because you can't stop something 100%, doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to improve matters. That's why I agree, a designated only area for photos would be a really good idea.

 

[Devolution]

Nothing stops creeper shots and even full time staff looking for it isn't enough to stop it. Bringing the maturity level of the con-goers and understanding of this stuff is the only way really to put a dent in that.

Also con-goers can start policing themselves if the rules are expressly written to disallow certain behaviors.

 

[Sai-kun]

Yes. Unless the water park expressly forbids it.

...no. The correct answer was no.

 

[Mesoian]

This is silly. They have no camera/photography in plenty of places that track in scores of people. It's called cultivating a culture and having security to reinforce the new norm.

And no one adheres to it. All major sports stadiums have no photography rules, especially the NFL, and I have never, EVER seen someone be told to put their camera or phone away once it's taken out during an event. I don't even know how they would begin to cover that.

Cultivating culture aside, because honestly how do you do so when every man, woman and child in this country has a camera on them at all times, security needs to be buffed up in order to handle individual issues without needing a small committee to decide on what to do with the offender, which is what happens NOW. Could you imagine if the small force of 1000-5000 security employees all suddenly had to deal with the idea of "You need to kick out anyone with an exposed camera but not the blue badge with yellow stripes". It's unreasonable.

Nothing stops creeper shots and even full time staff looking for it isn't enough to stop it. Bringing the maturity level of the con-goers and understanding of this stuff is the only way really to put a dent in that.

I'd say that's impossible, but bringing the accountability and consequences of both the attendees and the security staff is the best way of putting a dent in the problem.

Con-goers are never going to get better. Ever.

 

[DyTonic]

Seeing thirst irl is sickening.

 

[FStop7]

I have an idea what if we take all the movies, cosplay, videogames, tv shows, books and general fandoms out of this con and make it about comics.

Comic books? At comic-con? NERD.

 

[Mesoian]

I think you're largely wrong about the difficulty regarding enforcement, and this is from someone who has been an enforcer at multiple conventions, so I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

As someone who's had to deal with security members essentially shirking their responsibilities in order to go do whatever because they used the position to get a free badge and hotel room, I guess so.

 

[Devolution]

And no one adheres to it. All major sports stadiums have no photography rules, especially the NFL, and I have never, EVER seen someone be told to put their camera or phone away once it's taken out during an event. I don't even know how they would begin to cover that.

Cultivating culture aside, because honestly how do you do so when every man, woman and child in this country has a camera on them at all times, security needs to be buffed up in order to handle individual issues without needing a small committee to decide on what to do with the offender, which is what happens NOW. Could you imagine if the small force of 1000-5000 security employees all suddenly had to deal with the idea of "You need to kick out anyone with an exposed camera but not the blue badge with yellow stripes". It's unreasonable.

I don't know why you're treating this like an insurmountable task when security has to check people all the damn time and be on their guard for all kinds of other shit. Yes they'll miss some people, it happens, that's not a reason to avoid ousting an obvious creepshotter. Also your insistence that people can't tell the difference is bullshit through and through.

 

[Cow Mengde]

You guys bring up some very good points. I had a big eye rolling moment at last year's Comic Con. The guy was a walking comic book stereotype too. He was having a conversation with this girl, and everything was fine an dandy, then just before he leaves, he just had to comment on her chest. The guy said something like: "you definitely have the chest to cosplay as this character." If my eyes rolled any harder, my eyes would have fell out of their sockets. I mean, I guess it was harmless enough, but people just can't seem to understand that no matter how you say it, there's no way to compliment someone's body parts without being cringe inducing.

I think this has more to do with lack of social awareness than anything.

 

[besada]

As someone who's had to deal with security members essentially shirking their responsibilities in order to go do whatever because they used the position to get a free badge and hotel room, I guess so.

So, no experience running or enforcing con policy, just a bad experience with an enforcer. Yup, I'll just discount your opinion.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Seems like specifically defining what the Con thinks harassment is, setting up designated photo spots, and putting signage around encouraging people to ask before taking pictures of individuals would go a long way. As Devo pointed out, having expressly written rules would give con-goers ammunition with which to police themselves and call out creepers.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Without weighing in on the notion of whether or not I think "no cameras" is a good policy, I do feel compelled to chime in that I think it's not as unenforceable as one might think, and I don't think it even necessitates the barring of cell phones at events. Mind you, you're obviously not going to be able to have an omnipresent staff that sees every infraction or can always tell the difference between someone texting and someone taking a picture, but I don't think that smart phones make the act of taking a picture completely inconspicuous. Again, I'm not saying that stealthy people won't be able to pull off shots anyway, or that people using their phones legitimately won't be mistaken for taking a picture or vice versa, but I do think many people noticeably frame shots when using a camera phone. As such, I don't think you have to ban people using smart phones from the convention floor to effectively curb photographs should that be considered a viable option.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

As someone who's had to deal with security members essentially shirking their responsibilities in order to go do whatever because they used the position to get a free badge and hotel room, I guess so.

Again this comes down to what responsibility the SDCC has towards its attendees, and in both staff training and visitor awareness they have a tremendous degree of control. That fact that it won't be perfect enforcement should not stop them from trying to make it better than it is now.

 

[Devolution]

Seems like specifically defining what the Con thinks harassment is, setting up designated photo spots, and putting signage around encouraging people to ask before taking pictures of individuals would go a long way. As Devo pointed out, having expressly written rules would give con-goers ammunition with which to police themselves and call out creepers.

Signage is another great idea actually.

 

[Mesoian]

I don't know why you're treating this like an insurmountable task when security has to check people all the damn time and be on their guard for all kinds of other shit. Yes they'll miss some people, it happens, that's not a reason to avoid ousting an obvious creepshotter. Also your insistence that people can't tell the difference is bullshit through and through.

I'm getting called away, but the method you guys are describing, banning all cameras except for certain locations, is using a bulldozer to catch a butterfly. The answer lies in better training for security staff and more accountability and gravity for what the average security member can do.

Again this comes down to what responsibility the SDCC has towards its attendees, and in both staff training and visitor awareness they have a tremendous degree of control. That fact that it won't be perfect enforcement should not stop them from trying to make it better than it is now.

No one's arguing that fact. It's how to make them better that's the question. I think the answer lies in better training for security, others think it lies in banning the instruments people use to be bad.

So, no experience running or enforcing con policy, just a bad experience with an enforcer. Yup, I'll just discount your opinion.

Okay, you do that. You stopped listening to me a while ago anyway.

 

[Devolution]

Without weighing in on the notion of whether or not I think "no cameras" is a good policy, I do feel compelled to chime in that I think it's not as unenforceable as one might think, and I don't think it even necessitates the barring of cell phones at events. Mind you, you're obviously not going to be able to have an omnipresent staff that sees every infraction or can always tell the difference between someone texting and someone taking a picture, but I don't think that smart phones make the act of taking a picture completely inconspicuous. Again, I'm not saying that stealthy people won't be able to pull off shots anyway, or that people using their phones legitimately won't be mistaken for taking a picture or vice versa, but I do think many people noticeably frame shots when using a camera phone. As such, I don't think you have to ban people using smart phones from the convention floor to effectively curb photographs should that be considered a viable option.

You can pretty much tell when someone is just taking photos of backsides with a camera or camera phone.

 

[besada]

Okay, you do that. You stopped listening to me a while ago anyway.

That's what happens when you aren't saying anything, people stop listening. It can't be done isn't a useful argument of any sort.

 

[Ragingnight]

eh there always creepers at cons. I go to AX annually and never ran into an issue. Cosplayers in general, want to get their picture taken from my experience (at AX). Not sure how it is at other cons.

Just ask politely and if they say they are busy just walk away. done

I don't know people have to be creepers and like grope and take unwanted pictures.

 

[Beer Monkey]

In the smartphone age where video is shot at all times at well-attended events somebody needs to start uploading these groping incidents and shaming these creeps.

 

[hiroshawn]

Just stay home them. Problem solved. What? Are people supposed to cover their eyes when women walk by? LMAO.

 

[Devolution]

Just stay home them. Problem solved. What? Are people supposed to cover their eyes when women walk by? LMAO.

Yes the problem is dudes looking not

-groping
-stalking
-creepshots
-verbal harassment

Got any more wisdom for the thread?

 

[John Kowalski]

And no one adheres to it. All major sports stadiums have no photography rules, especially the NFL, and I have never, EVER seen someone be told to put their camera or phone away once it's taken out during an event. I don't even know how they would begin to cover that.

That's the case everywhere in the world, most photography laws exist to be used if the need arises, not to actually prohibit the photography they are trying to stop. Having the laws to be called upon whenever someone is behaving less than courteously, but not using them when someone is taking pictures that are perfectly fine is still far better than not having any restriction on photography whatsoever.

I personally believe nothing will ever improve until we start positively discriminating in favor of females specifically against harassment.

 

[LyleLanley]

Just stay home them. Problem solved. What? Are people supposed to cover their eyes when women walk by? LMAO.

Have you read anything in this thread or even the op?

 

[Hero]

A lot of disgusting posts showing a lot of ignorance in here.

I can definitely get on board with picture zones for cosplayer to be but at the bigger conventions it would get ridiculously crowded. Not saying it shouldn't be looked into or talked about but it would add a lot of complication.

 

[Ragingnight]

A lot of disgusting posts showing a lot of ignorance in here.

I can definitely get on board with picture zones for cosplayer to be but at the bigger conventions it would get ridiculously crowded. Not saying it shouldn't be looked into or talked about but it would add a lot of complication.

shits not possible for AX unless they open more room. Also not really enforceable with their current staffs being mostly volunteers.

 

[John Rabbit]

In the smartphone age where video is shot at all times at well-attended events somebody needs to start uploading these groping incidents and shaming these creeps.

you presume that A) the victims want to be identified publicly and that B) the kind of people who grope women are affected by the prospect of 'shame'.

 

[adamsappel]

You can pretty much tell when someone is just taking photos of backsides with a camera or camera phone.

Why are creepers bothering to frame shots anyway? Nobody's using film anymore; zoom & enhance later.

 

[Stet]

As someone who's had to deal with security members essentially shirking their responsibilities in order to go do whatever because they used the position to get a free badge and hotel room, I guess so.

Why would you hire security people with vested interests in attending what they're performing security for?