Sizecon: Another Brick in the Wall

32 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 03/24/2018 - 02:43

Anonymous

So, what the hell is that supposed to mean, and especially coming from me, you may ask?

Up until a few days ago, you would have thought I was the unofficial goodwill ambassodor between the forums and the con, starting a thread, promoting the event, encouraging people to go, meet some people of similar interests, and have a good time.

Unfortunately, I have now become the illwill ambassodor, seeing as how I recieved an email from the director, Ben, stating that I was banned from attending this year for reasons of, and I quote:

-Threatening behavior in online foums and communications

-Support of hate groups and racist ideology

Sounds like some pretty serious charges, right? Well, I emailed him back, asking him to cite where he was getting this information, to which he replied my Twitter account, being that I made a Holocaust joke right around the same time the Fine brothers were making asses of themselves, trying to trademark their "Reaction" videos on Youtube and that he did not approve of some of the people I followed on Twitter, calling them "scum". It's still up there, you can go read it yourself, I said it, go ahead, I'll wait. I'm a terrible person, aren't I? I even follow "Literally Hitler" himself, the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

As well, in my response email, I took an educated guess as to who it was that was feeding him this information that Im threatening people, and who else but than our good ole pal of the recent defunct handle, Butterfliesandhurricanes? We all know him, right? The guy who filmed underaged girls doing fetish material under false pretenses, as well as ripping people off of money they donated towards an inflatable suit to be used in the material, an just being an all around unpleasant person? Of course you do, if you've been around here for a while. Well, when I brought this up in the email, saying that this individual holds a grudge against me, is not above creating alternative shell accounts to make himself appear more than the one person he is, and that he is a legitimate threat to the privacy and security of his convention, I recieved only replies of "You're deflecting, you're a Nazi apologist, abusive, immature and refuse to own up to your mistakes!", even when I offered to pick this guy out of the photos from last years con to ensure that people of his ilk weren't to attend. Not to mention, being insinutated that I was a liar, due to not bringing it to anyone's attention until now, because I didn't think of the idea to pick him out of a photo until this all became an issue in the first place and it's pretty difficult to pick someone out by name when all you have to go on is a screenname that changes everytime the person in question gets called on their bullshit.

So, why am I telling you all this? I dont expect you to care about me, agree with me, or even like me, because why would you? Boo hoo for me, I don't get to go to the con, and probably not any of the future cons while Ben is running the show considering I told him to "get fucked". Still going to New York though, in the gracious company of Maxgrowth Productions, eat some pizza, have a few drinks, go to an art museum, maybe catch a Broadway show, have a good time.

What I am wanting to bring to your attention, if you cared to read this far into this post is that this person has made it clear to me that in his reality, words speak louder than actions and that he does not care about your privacy and security at his con, just as long he is surrounded by people who agree with him and it elevates his social platitude. Not only that, but that if you in any way, shape or form, post anything on social media, make a joke, follow people he doesn't like, you will be banned from attending the event. I guess that's just how its going to be from now on in this country, if you do or say anything that goes against the grain, popular opinion, corporate interests, whatever you want to call it, you WILL be silenced, have your reputation bismerched, or at the very least, excluded from social activites and be made a pariah by people who like to think of themselves as the moral superiors. You're either with us, or you're Nazi scum, simply put.

I, for one, will not silenced, especially when its about things that are part of me as a person and are important to me.

So, if you're not going, or had no plans on going, well, you're probably better off for the most part. I say the most part, because there were plenty of talented artists, producers and content makers at last year's con, though I am unsure of who will be attending this year seeing as how things are coming together as well as a washing machine with a brick in it.

However, if you are going to go or are thinking about going, watch your P's and Q's, walk on egg shells, don't post anything that might be considered offensive to anyone and just hope that you don't happen to be subscribed to a Youtube channel or a Twitter feed that he doesn't approve of or you will be banned.

Sounds like a real fun, relaxing time, don't it?

Sat, 03/24/2018 - 04:17

inflatingclothes

We don't need sjw snowflakes ruining everything because it hurt there feelings

Contact me via Twitter https://twitter.com/wanna585?t=Ge9klnQkvF2HxSR8dF1efA&s=09

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 09:40

Pennsylvania Ki...

Amazing! This is like, my past concerns coming true about this con being the centerpoint for unnecessary drama in the community. And it’s not even about the fetish permeating through to the outside, causing backlash or something, it’s negativity we on the forums have to deal with showing up.

Check out my stories that I've written...!

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 10:11

(Reply to #3) #4

MixMaster (not verified)

This was a non-issue last year when I went. There were plenty of nice, smiling faces, great artists and contributors, and in general, everyone got along. I don't recall there being not a one instance of someone being asked to leave. However, the previous owners of the con sold it due to not being able to financially support it any longer, to a person that is more concerned with controlling what his patrons say and think, rather than putting on a good show or the safety concerns that come with it. The idea of the con is still a good idea to me, but under this new ownership, I cannot endorse it.

And you know, I'm not one for drama either, I find it to be a complete waste of time, but when I see bullshit, I find it very hard to not say something.

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:28

(Reply to #3) #5

MixMaster (not verified)

You know, looking at your post from another angle, it almost makes me want to delete this thread, because Im starting to get Margaret as to why she really doesn't like to bring politics into something that doesnt need to have politics brought into it in the first place. It permeates all facets of entertainment now, from our movies to our video games and apparently now fetishes and I can't stand it, there is no escape from it all.

But you know, its a lot easier to keep quiet about something until it happens to you and according to a few other Ive talked to, apparently Im not the only one that was banned from attending. Id encourage them to speak up and say their piece in a civil manner if present. Even though its essentially just stirring the shit pot, what is one to do? Just sit idly by as people who are obsessed with control, being the moral superiors or have an agenda to push, takeover all means of forum, telling people what they can and cannot say, think, feel, and censors anyone who doesn't jive with their programming, in this case by exclusion? Id frankly like to talk about women being blown up like balloons, as absurd as that sounds, but I can not and will be silent on this bullshit nonsense.

Take for instance, what if something happens to Luther? I know nothing of the man's personal life, but I know for certainty that one day, he will not be here and then what? Do we just hope that whoever picks up the pieces is as fair as him and doesnt break up the community into "People who agree with my beliefs" and "People who don't"? I can't express how sincerely appreciative I am to him for letting this thread to be allowed because even though, he admittedly did ask me to change the title of the thread to something less provocative, and he may not even like what Im saying half the time or at all, I dont know, but he allowed the discussion to happen, the whole reason we're here, and that means a lot, at least to me.

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 11:06

inflatingclothes

Like the drama on bbw chan

Contact me via Twitter https://twitter.com/wanna585?t=Ge9klnQkvF2HxSR8dF1efA&s=09

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 17:06

(Reply to #5) #7

MixMaster (not verified)

Well really, I dont care much for them either. Im not going to say that Ive never seen paid content that I didnt pay for before, because I have, anyone who has been on pornhub has, but I also can't get behind actively distributing the stuff and encourage people go buy their content. Not paying for content = no new content being made, and then people bitch and complain about there not being anything made.

Sun, 03/25/2018 - 22:44

SizeCon

Good evening! I'm Daniel, of the SizeCon Safety Team.

MixMaster, in Ben's initial mailing to you, we stated we would not make a public statement on the topic of your ban from SizeCon '18. However, now that you've made public claims of your own, I'm afraid I must correct the record. Specifically, we decided to levy a temporary ban on you for making this post, here on these forums: http://bodyinflation.org/node/39687#comment-50633

"On a final note, dont kid yourself. I know why you operate in the shadows and why no one gets to see the "fruits" of your labor, you greasy little snake. Remember? You told me at Sizecon... It would give me great pleasure to see your high horse buck you off and kick you in the fucking teeth, so, if you wouldn't mind shutting your piehole, or if you prefer cake, shutting your cakehole, that would be grand."

Whether or not this is justified, this is clearly a threat made against another attendee and is a flagrant violation of our harassment policy. The privacy of our attendees is sacrosanct. So is their safety. Had you attempted to contact us at any point in the past year and filed a conduct report of your own against ButterfliesNHurricanes, we would have taken it as seriously as we're taking the allegations against you. You cast doubt on your claims by using them as a negative defense on your own behalf.

We do sincerely regret any hurt feelings that have arisen from this matter.

- Daniel

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 09:08

(Reply to #8) #9

Bustrix

How is that a threat though? (assuming youre referring specifically to the part you quoted)

He did indicate a excellent level of schadenfreude, but thats completely different to a threat. Just because you would love to see someone else fall, doesnt mean you would have any desire to do it yourself, or that you would take the opportunity to do so.

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 19:46

(Reply to #18) #10

MixMaster (not verified)

I have had several other people outside of this discussion point that out to me as well, but not in nearly as eloquent of a manner. Thank you, "schadenfreude", thats a dollar word if I ever heard one :D

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 11:04

(Reply to #18) #11

SizeCon

I've made a reply on this subject a little further down, if you'd like an explanation of the logic at work!

- Daniel

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 06:44

(Reply to #8) #12

Dizzibelle

First, I have to agree with Bustrix: Where exactly is there a threat being made in this sentence?

"...It would give me great pleasure to see your high horse buck you off and kick you in the fucking teeth."

Threatening to kick someone's teeth in is a threat, but that's not what's being said.

Secondly, where in the duties of a member of a safety team member does it include policing what someone says on various forums/social avenues? Art-gallery checking on the validity of someone claiming to be a fetish artist for a fetish convention makes perfect sense, but just like the "threat" above, that's not what's being addressed. You or a member of your staff has decided add "muckrake" to their list of duties and dredged up this one particular posting as a reason to levy a ban on someone. You're doing nothing regarding Mixmaster's claims of being called a "nazi apologist, abusive, and immature" either. Without knowing the exact back-and-forth of what's going on, and having watched the drama flotsam float past before, I'm more inclined to consider the actions of you and your staff suspect than what Mixmaster has/hasn't said. You're not addressing the specific claims that are being levied back at you, and the post you're trying to use to back your argument holds about as much water as a sieve.

It's sad that some people won't be allowed to meet content creators/etc. for their particular kink for fear of, in supreme ironic fashion, the wrath of the Safety Team dredging up something they said, deeming it "threatening" and banning them.

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 10:49

(Reply to #25) #13

SizeCon

I understand how this may not be clear, given that there's some context missing. I'd like to explain! There's this concept in threat theory, explicit versus implicit threats.

Explicit threats are the "I'm going to [x]" model: I'm going to hurt you, I'm going to find you, I'm going to key your car, et cetera. These are straightforward threats meant to communicate clear ideas of harm and intimidate people. These tend to be employed by people with poor impulse control, or think that their control of the recipient is so total that they feel they can issue them with impunity. This is not what happened here.

Meanwhile, implicit threats are more like "that's a nice [y] you've got there; it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it." This style of implicit threat is favored in less private venues, like the general public or online communities, because they're indirect and deniable. The idea here is the recipient of the threat is supposed to connect the dots: the person issuing the threat suggests something bad may happen apropos of nothing, and the conclusion meant to be drawn is that the person issuing the threat will be the one to do it. In this case, albeit in a metaphorical fashion, "that's some nice anonymity you've got there; it'd be a shame if someone were to out you." There's also an element of dogwhistling in there: those reading the forum post at face value don't know specifically what information was talked about at the convention, so the statement seems obtuse in and of itself. However, the threat recipient certainly knows the background more fully, and they understand the context of the threat. If they didn't, there would be no complaint, no enforcement action, and I wouldn't be here.

Secondly, where in the duties of a member of a safety team member does it include policing what someone says on various forums/social avenues?

I would argue that it is in fact part of our job to prevent notably bad apples in the community from attending; I see an attendee show up in a news report about domestic assault and it turns out they have a laundry list of violent, abusive felonies on their record, we're going to ban them. They get outed by #MeToo with several reports of inappropriate conduct, we're going to ban them. Anything else would be woefully irresponsible and, well, unsafe! The previous examples are logical extremes and certainly not the case here, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

You or a member of your staff has decided add "muckrake" to their list of duties and dredged up this one particular posting as a reason to levy a ban on someone. You're doing nothing regarding Mixmaster's claims of being called a "nazi apologist, abusive, and immature" either.

The complaint that was sent was first and foremost about that post, so my replies are about that post. Regarding any insults and slurs directed toward MixMaster, I will not comment on any enforcement actions levied against attendees not taking active part in this discussion. I will say that even if an incident happened outside of the convention space, if it happened between attendees and we get a report about it, then we at least give it a glance-over.

However, you don't need to look into outside social media to find examples of MixMaster's other unbecoming conduct against our complainant. The threat he issued also contains a racist dogwhistle (i.e. "greasy"), clouded as relating to MixMaster's claim of crowdfunding misappropriation, that seems to have gone unnoticed for the most part. Since the community at large is unaware that the complainant in question is Hispanic, despite that MixMaster knows on account of meeting the guy in person, there is again a degree of deniability there. Might of been an inadvertant and clumsy choice of wording, might have been purposeful and halfway clever, and it's only a single word, but it's there where no one can understand it except the recipient of the threat.

I hope that clears up some of the discussion. Thank you for your time!

- Daniel

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 11:15

(Reply to #26) #14

Janny Jaker

Saying “I’d take great pleasure in seeing you fail.” Isn’t anywhere close to a threat.

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 12:19

(Reply to #26) #15

Dizzibelle

I'm very well aware of the direct/indirect modeling of threats, but pseudo-implied threat or not, you/your staff are very clearly blowing that post wildly out of proportion. Will I be banned if I say then that I wouldn't mind those with better-than-thou attitudes being bucked from their horses and kicked in the teeth? Of course not, that'd be silly.

"However, the threat recipient certainly knows the background more fully, and they understand the context of the threat. If they didn't, there would be no complaint, no enforcement action, and I wouldn't be here."

Are you considering the possibility that the prospect of it being a 'threat' could be entirely irrelevant and the sole reason the complaint was issued was just to use you/your staff as a tool to further the conflict between the complaintant and Mixmaster?

"I would argue that it is in fact part of our job to prevent notably bad apples in the community from attending; I see an attendee show up in a news report about domestic assault and it turns out they have a laundry list of violent, abusive felonies on their record, we're going to ban them. They get outed by #MeToo with several reports of inappropriate conduct, we're going to ban them. Anything else would be woefully irresponsible and, well, unsafe! The previous examples are logical extremes and certainly not the case here, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at."

I do understand what you're getting at. But you seem to be siding immediately with the complaintant instead of examining the entire matter. If this grudge between them does go back, then instead of leaping to one conclusion or another, issuing a warning to both parties that disruptions to the con will not be tolerated and will result in temporary or permanent bans should have been your first course of action. If this was a case of repeat offense, then yes, bans are understandable.

All that said though, based on your choice of words and what I see of your thought processes, I have this sinking feeling down in the pit of my stomach that any and all discussions regarding this won't result in an amicable outcome, and should similar issues come up in the future, this sequence of events will repeat itself each and every time until those in charge of these decisions are removed from control. A convention revolving around a conglomeration of fetishes does need to be a safe space (As in the Three Golden Words of Sex version of safe: Safe, Sane, Consensual), but things are clearly pointed toward "Safe Space"-dom instead.

I will be bowing out of this "discussion" now. This rabbit-hole didn't go to the Wonderland I was hoping for.

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 12:36

(Reply to #32) #16

Janny Jaker

Beautiful counter. Well done.

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 17:43

(Reply to #26) #17

MixMaster (not verified)

Well of course the person making the insults and slurs, Ben, the director, your boss, isn't going to take part in the discussion because he knows that he's wrong, full of shit and far too busy trying to control things that aren't his to control.

Also, "racist dogwhitsle", thats new form of bullshit Ive never heard of. Is it of such a high pitch that only people like yourself with overly delicate sensibilites can hear, because literally not one other person besides yourself and the person that made the report construed it that way. Sounds like to me that if one construed it any other way that a racial slur, they're a racist in your book.

Do you even know that the word "greasy" means? (Of a person or their manner) effusively polite in a way that is felt to be insincere and repulsive, right? Do you sit around watching Trailer Park Boys, thinking Bubbles is a racist every time he says "greasy"? In retrospect, I should have used a different word, like dispicable, dishonest, reprehensible, or slimey, because the person on the receiving end was in no way polite, so you have me there, but I think it says a lot about you and your ilk that because they say the word "greasy", you automatically register "Mexican". You know what I think when I hear the word "Mexican"? Tacos, and if you've ever met me, you would know why because Ive had quite a few in my time. I guess you can chalk that up as a tally on my "Sizecon Safety Team" report card as "implied fat shaming"

And am I really to be expected to know a person's racial make up just from looking at them? I would have thought the guy was Indian from a glance, but what I find even more disturbing is that you will gloss over someone saying the phrase "You white fucks", but will damn me for using a single word that implies distaste for a person.

What about my feelings in the matter, huh? Because Im white, they dont matter, right? I dont really give a rat's ass because I think its clear to myself and everyone else, the guy is a douchebag and will not be missed, but it really makes me think, I wonder how Ben would have reacted if he would have said "You Jew fucks"... Must be my "privilege" talking.

And no, you did not clear up any of this discussion, seeing as how everyone here has essentially said youre full of shit and wrong, so try again.

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 02:09

#18

MixMaster (not verified)

Do you think I care if you werent going to make a public statement? I said what I said, its all there, black and white, clear as crystal, and I firmly stand by what I said, even now that you bring it up as a means of trying to discrediting me. He did something wrong, that everyone else here agrees is wrong, and instead of owning up to it, apologizing for his actions, returning the money he collected for the suit, and keeping his screenname, he just changed his screenname and weaseled his way back into the community. If you consider someone who calls someone out for being a lair and a thief that preys upon women, who told someone who was acting like a dick and actually being racist towards white people to kindly shut their piehole a threat, then you must also live in the reality where words speak louder than actions. Other way around, hombre.

If this, in fact, is the actual reason I am banned from attending, then as I said in my reply email, then I have ZERO interest in attending any of your future events while you sychophants are running the show. I also see no mention of the other reason I was supposedly banned in your post, for promoting hate groups and racist idealouges, that one slip your minds or are you maybe thinking that you went a little too far on that one?

Seemed to be the focal points of the emails Ben sent to me, with no mention of any of this "threatening" business being of any concern to him. Perhaps if you participated in some of the discussions of the communities youre trying to promote this show to, you have known better. Frankly, I dont believe you when you say people's safety and privacy is a pinnacle priority for your organization, considering I offered to pick this individual out of photos from last years con, a plan I came up on short notice because initially, he apologized to me at last years con and I decided to let by gones be by gones, and to give the guy another chance. As I said in one of my reply emails, Ive made mistakes before, Im not perfect. I used to run a Yahoo group that was full of pictures of candid, innocent pictures of women shoving balloons under their clothing, and at one point when I said that this user filiming these fetish movies featuring underaged women under false pretenses was kind of creepy, a user Faridae called me out on my hypocrisy. Didn't feel great, but he was right, so I apologized, and deleted the group with perspective gained. You know what though? I still have my screenname that I've been using for over a decade.

Unlike this individual, who changes his screenname everytime someone calls him on his bullshit and on his third now, since he decided to be a dick again, one for his commentary in that thread and two, for acting like an innocent little lamb being bullied by the big bad wolf by emailing you that I was "threatening" him, well of course at that point, all good will towards him is non-existent. Id love to know how you planned on barring an individual you dont even know from your event when you dont know their name or what they look like either. If I wouldnt have gone last year, how would you even know I was coming? I could have given you no information tying me to an online profile and you would have been none the wiser.

And doubts on my claims? That sounds very close to just calling me a liar, especially considering I had a trusted member of this community to back up my statements. http://bodyinflation.org/node/39696

He flat out admitted to his previous screenname and part of what he did, is this enough credible proof for you people or would you like me to dig back as far as I can in general discussion archive to find the original thread where this all took place? "Negative defense", give me a break. If thats wrong to say some mean words to someone like that, then I do not want to be right, god knows that horrible existence that must be. Do you think you would reacted so calm and collected if it was a hypothetical daughter that you may or may not have being taken advantage of like that? I know that I personally would have put the fear of whatever diety you may worship into him to the point where he would never go near her again.

You might also want to check your map as to what an "allegation" is. An allegation infers that what I may or may not have said was illegal or wrong, when I have never denied saying anything I am being demonizing for saying and have proven that my claims are indeed, factual. So, what now huh, what now?

And just curious, would you happen to be the individual who banned and harrassed another person on another social media outlet? I cannot validate his claim, considering I was not shown what was said by your staff to this individual or the context of what they were saying as well, nor do I completely trust the user in question considering their profile they sent their message from was only a week old, but it would not surprise me in the slightest that it actually occurred.

Also, quit sending me personal messages, saying "Its a temporary ban" like it means something at this point. You have something to say to me, you can say it in front of everyone else. If everything I say online is going to be constantly monitored and scrutized and if my words and opinions are so heinous that I am not allowed to attend, then as I have said several times before, I have no further interest in supporting your function and will encourage others who value their right to say what they want to say to do so as well.

All of this could have been simply averted by a discussion with me and I feel like we could have reached an understanding. However, your director, Ben, in all if his morally superior granduer, chose to involve politics into something that was meant to be an escape from the politics and bring people together, and decided to take the easy route by handing out bans like they were going out of style, inadvertedly opening a Pandora's Box, poking a vicious cunt... me... and now, well... I'm not going away and not apologizing for anything except that possibly I am sorry that someone such as him has to be running the show.

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 13:39

#19

NameTaken

u mad lol

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 15:46

(Reply to #10) #20

MixMaster (not verified)

Cute, would you like some toast with your smarmalade?

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 17:34

#21

blueberryjuicer

Honestly, this post looks like a fucking train wreck.

Berries are always sweet, no matter how sour they act, they'll always make the best juice.

Equation for juice filling: Volume/Quantity=[(Diameter*Circum

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 18:01

(Reply to #12) #22

MixMaster (not verified)

Do tell?

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 06:28

(Reply to #13) #23

blueberryjuicer

On one end, public relations is a delicate and tedious process that this person clearly ducked up

On the other end, this is not really a public issue, yet is public regardless

Most importantly, from my unbiased, con-unattending poor self, y'all both in the wrong for varying degress of reasoning that illustrates, at least to me, the issue of such a con's public relations.

Berries are always sweet, no matter how sour they act, they'll always make the best juice.

Equation for juice filling: Volume/Quantity=[(Diameter*Circum

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 13:43

(Reply to #17) #24

MixMaster (not verified)

Thats a pretty fair and reasonable arguement, Id say.

I'll still make the arguement though as I made in lower post, that because it is a public convention, I have the right to bring up any grievences I have with it in a public forum. Ill also argue that I still like the idea of the con because I had fun talking to people face to face about something I don't really get to talk to people about in my daily life, and Im willing to risk a bit of drama over that opportunity.

However, instead of having a discussion about it, like we are now, the guy wanted to make things personal because he doesn't agree with some of my opinions, completely unrelated to the subject matter of the con. Not to mention, I dont really agree with his assessment of what an actual "threat" is; the way the guy is talking, you'd think I was Liam Neisons characters from Schindlers List and Taken rolled into one.

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 15:20

(Reply to #19) #25

blueberryjuicer

Honestly, I'd love to know the specifics, if you'd prefer them in private, as such an issue fascinates and intrigues me to no end, especially for my rather mundane day to day life, plus I like solving problems or being a pseudo-confessional for those who don't partake in any religion.

It's really fun.

Berries are always sweet, no matter how sour they act, they'll always make the best juice.

Equation for juice filling: Volume/Quantity=[(Diameter*Circum

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 17:35

(Reply to #20) #26

MixMaster (not verified)

Frankly, I feel like were far past the point of keeping these proceedings private, considering I told the director to "get fucked" and made this thread. Not to mention, I said to the person handling correspondence from this forum for the con that "If you have something to say to me, you can say it in front of everyone else", so it would be hypocritical of me to do otherwise and it would infer I have something to hide, which I don't.

That being said, Im an open book, guy. What specifics would you like to know?

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 20:40

#27

doubleintegral

I've always thought that public forums were the perfect place to settle private grievances.

Stories I have written

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 22:52

#28

MixMaster (not verified)

That went out the window when the director told me its "nothing personal", bans me from the con and then proceeded to accuse me of threatening people and being part ot "hate groups". I dont know about yourself, but I take these sort of accusations pretty damn personal.

It would be like you saying something that Luther didn't agree with on another website, he bans you from the forums, and then after telling you "its nothing personal", tells you that youre a horrible, dangerous person. Think you would take that lying down? Maybe so, if you didn't possess a spine. Not to mention, it's irrelavent if the grievences were private or public, I was banned from a public event, so I'm going to make my grievences known on a public forum.

Mon, 03/26/2018 - 23:13

#29

Cosinusitis

_{My username is stupid.}

_{Better known as Poqato on the art scene.}

Tue, 03/27/2018 - 22:07

#30

MixMaster (not verified)

Hey all,

I wanted to make a post to clarify something, out of respect for those who are going to attend, the producers, the artists, and some of the more savory people actually making this con happen. They are using a lot of time and effort, not to mention travel expenses to get there, so I feel as though this needs to be addressed on its own.

It is NOT my intention to sully or wreck the con or have an "If I can't go, then nobody else should!" attitude, it is far from it. Its part of the reason I am upset with the directors unjust decision to ban me, because as I've said before, I had a great time last year. Picked up a few prints from Bust Artist, Mabo, and some others that escape me at the moment, got to talk about something that one would rarely get to talk about openly face to face with people instead of over a computer, and it was a pretty unique experience.

My conflict with all of this is one or possibly more individuals, abusing their seat of power to act as a means of authority and control of what people are allow to say and think, even outside of our respective communities, by penalty of exclusion from social events. This is not to say that I am against a means of arbitration, but when you involve your own personal politics in a matter where they dont belong, whats the point of having rules when judgement boils down to one person's biased whim?

And in a sense, I guess this is what this is all about: social control. Include everyone that agrees with you, and exclude those who don't. Silence all opposition, one way or another, and try to bully people into falling into line.

Needless to say, they are doing a pretty piss poor job of it and hopefully, it does not reflect onto the con as well.

Wed, 03/28/2018 - 06:20

#31

kidquetzal

'Tis a sorry state, the world of inflation.

Thu, 03/29/2018 - 11:15

#32

SizeCon

I also see no mention of the other reason I was supposedly banned in your post, for promoting hate groups and racist idealouges, that one slip your minds or are you maybe thinking that you went a little too far on that one?

While the threat was the main thrust of the complaint, you have not simply been banned for making threats toward an attendee, no. While I can't answer to "promoting hate groups" specifically, I did notice that you called ButterfliesNHurricanes "greasy" in your threat to him. You and I both know he's Hispanic, a fact that the forum at large seems unaware of. This means that calling him "greasy" was certainly a slur; either unintentional and thoughtless at best, or halfway clever, double-entendre dogwhistle racism cloaked in your accusations of him mishandling money at worst. That the focus of discussion has remained on the second charge is regrettable in a variety of ways, but it's not without merit.

Frankly, I dont believe you when you say people's safety and privacy is a pinnacle priority for your organization, considering I offered to pick this individual out of photos from last years con, a plan I came up on short notice because initially, he apologized to me at last years con and I decided to let by gones be by gones, and to give the guy another chance.

Id love to know how you planned on barring an individual you dont even know from your event when you dont know their name or what they look like either.

I will not make further comment on the decision process or enforcement methods, regarding levying bans made against other people not taking active part in this discussion or in general.

And doubts on my claims? That sounds very close to just calling me a liar, especially considering I had a trusted member of this community to back up my statements.

Appeal to popularity nonwithstanding, the doubt is not on your claims, as you will see below. The doubt is on the faith in which you forward this information to us. As in, choosing to backpocket it for future, indeterminate usage.

He flat out admitted to his previous screenname and part of what he did, is this enough credible proof for you people or would you like me to dig back as far as I can in general discussion archive to find the original thread where this all took place?

That is unnecessary! I’ve already done it. You make several salient points in the second thread in particular, and it genuinely frustrates me that you caught so much flack for being the much-needed voice of reason and perspective in that specific situation.
http://bodyinflation.org/node/27976
http://bodyinflation.org/node/28286

"Negative defense", give me a break. If thats wrong to say some mean words to someone like that, then I do not want to be right, god knows that horrible existence that must be.

I'll admit the term "negative defense" was incorrect and unclear. I was thinking of "argumentum ad hominem", where one attempts to sidestep allegations by undermining the credibility of folks making said allegations. For example, you inadvertently claim my initial post is ad hominem when you say "even now that you bring it up as a means of trying to discrediting me." My goal is not to discredit you; it's to correct the record.

You might also want to check your map as to what an "allegation" is. An allegation infers that what I may or may not have said was illegal or wrong, when I have never denied saying anything I am being demonizing for saying and have proven that my claims are indeed, factual. So, what now huh, what now?

If it so pleases you, I shall heretofore refer to it as a "fact".

And just curious, would you happen to be the individual who banned and harrassed another person on another social media outlet? I cannot validate his claim, considering I was not shown what was said by your staff to this individual or the context of what they were saying as well, nor do I completely trust the user in question considering their profile they sent their message from was only a week old, but it would not surprise me in the slightest that it actually occurred.

Again, I will not discuss the decision process regarding levying bans against other people not taking active part in this discussion. However, I will mention that I haven't spoken to whomever this is in any meaningful way.

However, your director, Ben, in all if his morally superior granduer, chose to involve politics into something that was meant to be an escape from the politics and bring people together, and decided to take the easy route by handing out bans like they were going out of style....

Again, while I acknowledge that this situation could've been handled with more deftness on both sides, your remark that we're "handing out bans" at an unacceptable rate is incorrect, perhaps even hyperbolic. Though I know the exact, single-digit number over the span of three years we've been running, in this public forum alone an observer might count two: your own, and the one of the other anonymous user you've mentioned. If you'd be so kind and patient as to cite the sources that form the basis of this claim, please do so.

...inadvertedly opening a Pandora's Box, poking a vicious cunt... me...

Finally, I would like to take a momentary break from the detached professionalism I've attempted to display here as well as my stated goal of correcting the record, in order to take this opportunity to roll my eyes.

This will likely be my final substantive reply on the matter. I continue to regret the course of these events. Thank you for your time.

- Daniel

Topic locked

Sizecon: Another Brick in the Wall

Navigation

User login