496
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
496 points (97.9% liked)
People Twitter
5263 readers
1561 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Make a rule at the conventioans and prevent them from entering ..?
Even at the bigger cons which have enough staff to police it, it's a damned difficult thing to do. You can't card everyone at the door, panel rooms have to be turned over as quickly as possible (and you can't force that kind of liability onto your volunteers), people are in costume or just look really young, and that's even ignoring the seemingly infinite technical issues that every convention is plagued with, etc. etc.
Not saying you're wrong, it's just not as simple as "telling them they can't". The kind of people that would bring their kid to a hazbin panel aren't the kind of people that will give a shit about the inconvenient convention rules in the first place.
Which brings me to my suggested solution: Make a rule about it and give every volunteer a cattle prod.
There is a large gap between needing to card someone because the might be younger than 18, and someone bringing little kids. With the little kids you can point to the 18+ sign and just refuse entry.
Also we should stop acting so prudent about sex in regards to teenagers.
If the attendees are not expecting to be involved in a sexual activity and a teenager is old enough to experience sexuality, acts mature, otherwise walk around without supervision and makes their own choices to visit such panel. What harm is their really?
With actual kids there is no doubt, they stick out where they don’t belong.
I would draw the line, i would look at wether or not there is doubt, and give benefit of the doubt to whoever acts mature.
If the panel members are uncomfortable, it's their choice.
They aren't consenting to conducting adult discussion with kids around.
Not sure if age of consent argument
If you want to put it that way:
I made a very hard line when the public may become part of the act. But at that point everyone should be ID’d and over the legal age.
I am sort of saying lower the age to give consent to watch/observe public events that include sex elements, like a panel for an adult show. (Its not like teens don’t know how to use the internet, they probable have watched hazbin hotel if they are at the panel)
Actual kids, who should not be unsupervised on the internet are completely out the scope. You cannot give consent for something you don’t fully understand.
If you want to talk age of consent to fuck i am more in favor of a sliding window of acceptable within their age group. Not because they should have sex but because we should respect that teens do experience sexuality and the desire to experiment with that.
I am trying to grasp why minors having sex with other minors is deemed okay. They both cannot consent. Would this not be equal to two drunk people having sex?
This is beyond the scope of the original context but the fundamental question here would be at what point can people provide consent? Currently this depends on a legal per country basis. What constitutes "a minor" is not the same everywhere.
The psychological argument would be whether or not a person is mature enough to fully understand their actions and potential consequences and this is not the same for everyone. People develop maturity - or aspects of maturity at their own pace and at some point will demand or experiment with autonomy and freedom to make their own choices. To deny that reality and instead use oppression/lack of sex education is counterproductive and leads to more dangerous scenarios.
Wait, you think they care if the teenagers get in? We're talking about the elementary school kids.
Eeh, more complicated than that. Enforcing age restrictions is an obnoxiously complex issue, even though by all reasonable measures it shouldn't be.
The #1 priority of a con is protecting its panelists & volunteers, and while keeping the panelists comfortable is a critical aspect, enforcement of the conditions they need for adult panels can be a logistical nightmare. It's why so many cons are moving away from having any adult oriented panels at all, and it's really sad to see that the most reasonable solution is to just not have them.
Yeah, at the end of the day though you have to set realistic expectations and if you can't round up the staff with that then you can't have it. Trying to card check everyone coming into the room would just take too long.
You can card everyone. You're already carding their ticket.
Just state at purchase you must be X to enter.
And at the door.
Then when people enter: "ID and ticket please!"
Most conventions aren't doing a ticket check at each panel.
So? Then do it at the entrance
So you want the entire convention to be 18 plus?
No.
I'm getting the feeling there's a bit of dunning-kruger going on here, and that it was unfair of me to be quite so glib about this in my initial comment. A short overview of why it's Not That Simple:
There's the huge issue of both 'volunteer personal liability' and 'convention liability for enforcement.' You can't have your volunteers handling 250-500-1000 people's IDs (one hazbin panel was in a 2000 seat room and still overflowed whoops), and the con really doesn't want to take on the liability that would come with enforcing ID checks. It's why cons with beer gardens have outside (usually facility-provided) staff to manage them, they don't just use their own crew, you actually need training to deal with that. And then, if the con is enforcing age requirements they open themselves up to be sued for failing to enforce it (and causing 'emotional distress' to a panel viewer that was uncomfortable, this is a real example I had to deal with, it was even more stupid than it sounds) or lawsuits for unfair discrimination when someone who looks 14, but is in fact 20, is denied entry by a frazzled and overworked volunteer.
And then logistically: you don't want your volunteers fielding all the complaints at the door, people won't be able to get in or you'll run out of volunteers. This isn't a concert venue or a club, these things are huge and are the most complex crowd management scenarios that exist after Disney World. There's no expansion of a line like you get with security checks outside of panel rooms because convention centers are designed to make movement of people from spaces as efficient as possible. Introducing artificial bottlenecks into spaces like that will not only impede foot traffic and violate fire codes, it can be actively dangerous. Introducing excessive foot traffic for avenues not designed to handle peak loads like that sets up a perfect crush situation, and it absolutely has to be discussed with the venue beforehand to see if it's even legal.
These aren't insurmountable problems, but they are large problems that come on top of a million other ones. A convention's resources are much better spent managing problems, not creating new (and potentially very severe) ones for themselves.
Lol what the fuck this is the most "well actually" I've ever seen.
Consent trumps all. If the performers are uncomfortable, it doesn't matter how challenging the customer dynamic is.
If you hold an event, get the proper staff to keep your entertainers supported. Or don't do it.
Concerts ID people all the time. The staff are available. Don't act like this is some yet unheard-of Herculean task.
Just a guess here:
You really don't know anything about this topic and you're responding both defensively and very insultingly because you treat a response that is even mildly critical as personal attack, as the realization that you don't really understand the topic at hand causes you to cement your prior position (since we as a species don't easily admit fault) and because casting yourself as fundamentally superior to the person you disagree with not only helps with the aforesaid cementing but also allows you to assuage the feeling of insecurity that comes with the also aforesaid realization of fault by giving yourself a sense of reassuringly fundamental supremacy over those who might cause you to suffer the mental anguish of self-reflection?
That's the only way I can figure out how you'd feel justified in making a comment that is both rude and plainly shows you misunderstood what you're responding to. Lmfao, I agree with you. I even say that in the comment you're replying to. Calm down.
Let's be clear, opening with a dunning Kruger callout is rude. No one is an expert here, everyone is anonymous. It's 100% unidan/jackdaw energy.
Further, I didn't read your wall of text because nothing other than consent matters. If the performers are uncomfortable, I don't care if they need the fuckin national guard to facilitate ID checks. I care nothing about the hurdles involved.
The whole schtick here is le redditor and I'll stick with the simple "consent established, or leave".
... I'm sorry, you're attacking my argument based on what you think I might have said? And you're continuing to belittle me/my attempt to actually engage with you on the topic at hand because...?
As I said, you started with DK. How are you surprised I didn't read further, and am unfriendly?
My point centered on consent, and someone sent me a dismissive opening on a long message. What's to be done? Discard it.
Edit ZERO concerns are worth discussing if the consent of participants can't be achieved.
Yeah and in the same sentence I apologized for being excessively glib. Come on. How would you have preferred I say this, "Hey you really painfully clearly don't know what you're talking about, here's why you're wrong"?. While that's obviously a sarcastic extreme we both know that any other approach I took that contradicted what you were saying would have lead to the same hyperdefensive redoubling of your positions that you're doing right now. You're even still obsessing about saying 'consent is important', when it's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand here. I'm sure glad you know the word, but what does it mean? Genuinely, sincerely, explain your point to me. Because right now it appears to be "Conventions shouldn't have adult panels if they're unwilling to police the age of the participants to ensure their panelists are comfortable" and yeah, no shit sherlock. That's why we don't have very many adult panels. Wanna know what the challenges to ensuring consent / comfort are? Read my earlier post where I elaborated on the topic and apologized for initially dismissing your comment.
Jesus fucking christ, while ignorance isn't shameful, choosing to stay ignorant because of your ego sure fucking is.
Apologizing after the fact can't erase y response, unless you'd prefer I go back and edit.
My dude I don't know shit other than consent is king. Does that admission appease you? The performers are uncomfortable and I care nothing about any real world limitations of the panel tour circuit. If they can't do it right don't do it at all. Volunteers or negative guest interactions are meaningless
Enjoy your win, you're clearly so learned on the topic, leave me alone
Uh... yeah, actually, it does. Being able to admit ignorance or fault, even begrudgingly, is an often insurmountable obstacle in any human interaction.
I'm not doing this to win an argument or something similar. I'm doing this to explain a topic that's important to me, to someone that can negatively impact said topic by jumping to conclusions. Conclusions which, to anyone not familiar with the topic, would appear totally reasonable. Even though in this case we're even in agreement, knowing the complexities of a topic is important to growth and understanding as an individual.
Holy shit