Atlantic City Fur Con story responses – Part 3.
by Patch O'Furr
A trial run for a convention had a behavior issue. Part 1 looked at what happened and Part 2 had sources and issues. Before publishing there was a request for comments from the organizer, then others responded. Keep in mind that some of them responded before chat screens were published and seen.
That individual was banned. We have an official rules page. Check us out https://t.co/8vlRtfYVvg
I can not speak for all individuals and what they'll do. But I do not tolerate that behavior.
Here's the official con chat. Please check the website for only con associated chats. pic.twitter.com/H6Mk7NNmme
— RadFox🔜 ACFC (@ShRadow_Fox) February 25, 2018
Radfox chatted more in private message.
The con was small and humble in nature but I consider it a success with the amount of fun had. We had approximately 30 to 35 turn out. Everyone had a good time and kept within reason there were no incidents with the hotel or their security. At this time the con felt more like a big party but I am hoping to expand. I want to run it unlike a traditional con I want to run it as more of a open-ended schedule. We had 2 scheduled events. These included shooting on the beach on Friday. The other was the big group picture on the boardwalk. Aside from that we all did our own thing we adventured along the boardwalk and enjoy the amenities of the hotel including their wonderful pool casino and restaurants… As far as partying and in your words frat party we were rather tame in comparison to other furry cons we had a no drug policy. Everyone that drank in my room at least was carded and ID’ed. Nobody was overly drunk in need of an ambulance or medical attention. As the chairman I limited myself to 1 to 2 drinks per night.
The official chat was formed by a group of friends with an idea to expand. It has a set of rules as you saw in my recent tweet. We grew it by passing out flyers and telling friends to tell friends about it and add them to the chat. As for the issue you referenced, that was an individual that crossed the line breaking the rule about no racism and I told him to stop. When he refused I banned him. I, myself, and ACFC do not tolerate that behavior hence the individual was banned. There is only one official chat associated with ACFC found on the website. The other chat we broke off from ACFC to do whatever it wanted. I am not associated with it and neither is my staff.
I am not sure how he got in but he is not in the official one (he’d be banned after seeing this). The link to ACFC is available to everyone and anyone can add anyone. Jerreh did not post in the main chat ever. But no that is 100% not allowed or tolerated at ACFC. I do not want to speculate but if I had to guess someone added him to start drama and a fight.
A reader sent this private message.
At the time, many trolls were trying to throw up a smokescreen or use intimidation to stop the article from publishing. (Later Radfox apologized and I said there was no need, that stuff is part of my “job”.) Then the article came out and some people started connecting people in a group photo to chat activity they didn’t do.
As far as I can tell @RazzaTheKanga had absolutely nothing to do with activity in the article posted yesterday. He's in this group pic and there's angry messages at people in it. Please don't do that, it's not a good way to connect to net activity. https://t.co/Jqw3rKVbor
— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) February 27, 2018
@rileyyfox was in a group pic going around with angry messages at people in it. I don't support a group pic counting as a bad thing apart from a story. I think he had nothing to do with chat activity in the story. Sorry rileyy.https://t.co/omNQmeUWm4
— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) February 27, 2018
There was a lot of criticism about including Koss in the story, making bad side effects he didn’t deserve. The story info was reporting about posts from a public/official chat. I tried getting more facts by asking for comments before publishing, but didn’t get any help to decide. Two reasons for sharing the info were 1) A wider topic about behavior. 2) Being thorough and showing that events did happen when there was dispute about if they did. After the article published Koss did chat and agree to share a few extra words.
You're not racist. I'm sorry for side effects. Stuff like asking for takedown is also part of attacks I'm getting to hold back news and there's at least one source in fandom that doesn't play that. If you contact a news source its worth asking for off record chat, if they agree.
— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) February 26, 2018
Reading this over.. I had no idea it got "that" bad. Errm. I'm kind of glad this happened now I suppose. More so because the people I was defending have been defended a bit in the article too. Ive never liked this behavior, in fact it always kind of made me uncomfortable anyhow.
— Koss Kelir@FWA, EF (@KossKelir) February 27, 2018
There were requests to try reducing judgement about people in the story. Koss sent this screenshot of Kazu (who is in some of the chat screens) making friends again with Trenton.
There was much more info about people improving relationships afterward and saying good things about each other that’s personal so I won’t share it.
This was one of the hardest stories to write ever on the site. It started by request of multiple tips. The amount of preparation was significant, with research I don’t ordinarily do. There was a lot of emotional concern about people in it I won’t get into (because covering a heavy issue isn’t about making friends.) It was a big challenge to sort the info. It couldn’t easily be re-written for different approaches (like removing someone). One criticism was made about putting it out in 3 parts in 3 days, so assumptions were made after the first part. On the other hand all the questions and criticism improved the second part. Keep doing that and help me to write better (or fail better) because there’s not really anyone else doing this or a boss to rely on for it, just a fandom that I hope will keep improving.