xiphias | A negative comment about a party at Arisia

A negative comment about a party at Arisia

Far as I'm concerned, you can EITHER have an invite-only party OR you can advertise your party.

But it's FUCKING RUDE to advertise your invite-only party.

Don't mind invite-only parties. Don't even mind invite-only parties who, apparently, were going around handing out invites only to women who were dressed slutty. Heck, if someone took that to the extreme, and walked around the con handing out slips of paper which said, "You're sexy. Come to my room at 11 pm," that wouldn't bother me. And if he or she got people to show up, more power to him or her.

DO mind people who do that and also put posters up in the stairwells advertising their party. It's fucking RUDE to do that, then set up a velvet rope outside, and do the "club" thing. Dunno about you, but I go to cons to get away from that kind of dynamic.

Yes, I'm pissed off at not being pretty enough to get into that party.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

NOW I understand that "more like this" meant, "in costume." What we heard was "like a slut," and that offended us.

So you got offended by what you heard rather than by what was said; that explains a lot.

And is pretty typical in human communication, yes.

Being common hardly justifies something; you didn't bother to find out what the doorguard meant because what you heard fit so well with your expectations.

A communication failure happens because of two things: a message sent failure, or a message recieved failure.

You'll notice that I'm not the only one who received the message I received.

That means that, while a certain amount of the failure happened on my side, another amount happened on the "sending" side.

In general, in communications studies, we tend to consider a communications failure to usually have the larger portion of the failure happening on the "sender" side. In a typical communication failure, about 70% of the error happens on the sender side -- that's obviously an approximate number, because this isn't something that can be ACTUALLY measured.

Naturally, what I heard fit with my expectations. That's the way that things work, and that's part of the sender side -- what expectations have been set up.

You'll notice that I'm not the only one who received the message I received.

I also notice that many received the intended message and this is obviously a skewed sample; of those who were initially turned away but weren't offended, how many do you think are finding this post and bothering to say anything?

There are also several people posting here who both got in and had a great time.

Naturally, what I heard fit with my expectations. That's the way that things work, and that's part of the sender side -- what expectations have been set up.

I'm talking about your world-view that predisposes you to find offense in this kind of circumstance; those planning the party had no part in that world-view, I'm guessing. Both the posters (and the invites) set up the expectation in me that dressing skanky was the way to go. The invites explicitly said, "Inappropriate dress required" (and no, I didn't get one because I'm a hot chick) but that was only heavily implied on the posters.

Of course I have a world-view that predisposes me to find offense in this sort of circumstance -- that's what I've been SAYING. And of course the ACTUAL party hosts had no part of that.

That, of course, doesn't mean that they aren't aware of that sort of mind-set, nor that they are -- I mean, we live in the same culture, so I assume we have some sort of cultural commonality, but, as I have never met them, I don't know that.

As far as sent messages: I also assume that other people were SENT other messages. They had different people working the door at different times; different people have different communication styles. Every communication event happens in a context, between people. I, personally, received a message. A few other people ALSO received the same message, which suggests that the ENTIRE burden of miscommunication is not on me.

In cases where only a single person receives a message, you can assume that the entire fault belongs to that person: "I asked him if he wanted paper or plastic; he assumed that I said to worship our Lord Satan and kill babies. I guess I could have been clearer. . . "

In a case like that, you wouldn't assume that the SENDER of the message had been at fault. But if MULTIPLE people assume that that supermarket bagger is suggesting infant sacrifice, you might want to check to see if the supermarket bagger is maybe wearing a button which says "ASK ME ABOUT SACRIFICING INFANTS TO SATAN" or something.

If a statistically significant number of people are receiving the wrong message, then the message sender needs to look at that -- even if the great majority of people are receiving the intended message.

If a statistically significant number of people are receiving the wrong message, then the message sender needs to look at that -- even if the great majority of people are receiving the intended message.

I don't believe a statistically significant number of people got the wrong message nor do I believe that if the great majority got the right message that it should change to accommodate those that didn't.

I also believe that you (and the others turned away who didn't come back in "proper dress") aren't their "target audience"; while you may well have enhanced the party, it was a surer bet for them that others would.

I also believe that you (and the others turned away who didn't come back in "proper dress") aren't their "target audience"; while you may well have enhanced the party, it was a surer bet for them that others would.

Nothing I'm saying contradicts that -- what I've been saying, and still hold to after all this discussion, and even now that I have a much better idea of what the party hosts intended -- is that, under that dynamic, the party shouldn't be advertised.

I agree that advertising the party with no room number was a bit odd and said as much to my assistant who knows the people who put it on. But I don't think it *shouldn't* have been done; I just think they could have been clearer about the dress code.

The whole thing has spiraled out of control, though, and people are talking about how the party should have been canceled, the posters taken down and the people not allowed to return to Arisia, all for the sin of turning away people at the door and thus pushing some people's buttons. And that, I think, is a total over-reaction.

For the record -- none of those people are me. I'm saying that the party shouldn't have had posters up, and that, other than that, everything else was tacky at worst, and, now that I'm understanding where they're coming from, I don't even feel quite that.

I'm not certain where anyone said the party should have been closed down -- "closed", yes -- but I saw that in the sense of "closed party", not "closed down party".

I'm not certain where anyone said the party should have been closed down -- "closed", yes -- but I saw that in the sense of "closed party", not "closed down party".

Check this thread and the one over at the

arisia; at least one person said in no uncertain terms that Arisia should have closed down the party. And it was implied more than once that these people shouldn't be let back into Arisia until they didn't do that kind of thing any more.

You're both partly right I think. Yes some of the door people were new and they would start by giving folks at the door a hard time and then move to explaining that if potential guests changed into some sort of costume they would be let in. Folks that left right away without having the conversation only got the hard time, and that is probably our fault.

We were trying to create buzz for the party with the posters, that's why there was no room number on the posters, and *even* if we intended to be slightly more open than we were supposed to be, without making that clear (which we couldn't on the posters because we were supposed to be closed, and didn't always at the door because of communication problems) this may have followed the letter of the law but not the spirit (not sure there), and we were probably wrong there too.

I agree with xiphias that we should not have advertised a closed party, which even though it wasn't *that* closed was still arbitrarily selective.
I don't think we needed to be closed down - we've been having these parties at Arisia for probably 10 years and are just starting to friendly them up outside our immediate circle of friends. Asking us to take down the posters should have been enough, I mean we're paying hundreds of dollars (probably a grand or so to put on that party) and spending 150 hours on decor and we got a little overexcited. That doesn't seem like a crime punishable by exile.

Finally, I am not saying that xiphias would not have been a fun guy to party with - he just got the wrong message which is probably halvsies our fault & his... but hell yes we are trolling for folks with a sense of humor. WE are the skanks - all our badges say skanks, we are dressed in the party theme, and we've been using the term 'skanking out' for years and years as we get ready for parties. It was a natural progression to theme our parties. Folks who come to the door and laugh when we give them shit about their jeans and tshirts and are willing to do something like put on a leash to be a muggle-in-tow (no disrespect intended to lifestylers, we meant it as a marker not a relationship statement) or most especially to run back to their rooms to change for us - those are our kind of people, they're willing to have fun with us and to play along, and so we want to share our hard work, bridge of the enterprise, dance party, snacks and our Con experience with them. Folks who get angry that we used the term skank, or who get angry at the door check (when it is properly applied, sorry xiphias) well they are not willing to have fun with us so yeah we're weeding them out.

But postering even without room numbers is advertising, and advertising if we retain the right to turn people away upsets the people that get turned away. Should we do it - I'm guessing not. Is it wrong? It happens all the time in the real world, but maybe it shouldn't at Con. I haven't finished forming my opinion on if its wrong, but you're all helping. Thank you.

And, like I've been saying, as I've been hearing from your side of the story, I'm really understanding where you guys are coming from.

For the record, if there are camps, I'm firmly in the "Hell, yes, this party should exist if people want to throw it" camp, even if I'm also in the "advertise it? Um. .. " camp.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A negative comment about a party at Arisia

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts

Re: One of the Party Hosts