There are other models than "judicial" to deal with harassment at cons.

[xiphias]

You know, if you go to a casino, and they think there's a decent chance you are counting cards at blackjack, you not only don't get to go back to THAT casino, but, if any other casino recognizes you, you don't get to go there, either.

Comments

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

Also, the comic novels of Anthony Trollope and Charles Dickens are not the best models for a deliberative process. Mikki Kendall's complaint apparently wasn't "official," despite being emailed to at least one member of the Frenkel Subcommittee (Trollopeian right there) because? It didn't have the proper stamp from the Circumlocution Office?

[gingicat]

*sigh*

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Good thought.

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

Works even better if the casinos share details of known card counters, too.

[redbird]

True, though maybe there's an analogy that doesn't assume that the con considers everyone who walks in the door to be a naive sucker, and will expel those who have a chance of winning.

[rosefox]

Right. Casinos take a hard line against fraudsters and card sharps because they target the house. They don't care much about people who target other patrons.

So the analogy would be someone stealing money from a convention, and in my experience those allegations are taken extremely seriously.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

The fox is provisionally banned from the henhouse...

[embryomystic.livejournal.com]

Yup, this.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Not letting people play a game because they are too good at it might not be the best model.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Casinos also have a lot more money and better communication than conventions do.

And professional staff that talk to other professional staff.

[tober.livejournal.com]

What you say about casinos is mostly correct but not completely. For example, in New Jersey, card counting is affirmatively permitted (although the use of assistive devices in card counting is not) and one may not be ejected from a casino for doing so. I am unsure whether any other jurisdictions have a similar rule. My understanding is that in NJ all casinos use large enough shoes combined with frequent enough shuffling to make card counting pretty much pointless. They tend to do that elsewhere too anyhow and I don't think being ejected for card counting (without assistive devices) actually happens much anywhere these days. You're right, though, in most jurisdictions a casino can eject you for pretty much any or no reason other than perhaps certain reasons that would be counter to public policy.

This all being said... if a con has a general demonstrated policy of allowing nearly anybody (who fills out the proper form and pays the admission fee) to attend and then ejects someone for no or a particularly flimsy reason and that person were to sue, there's a reasonable chance that the plaintiff would prevail. There are instances of casino patrons who were ejected suing for readmission and prevailing, even in casino-friendly jurisdictions like Nevada - though not a lot.