man at our events monopolizes attendees, beverages on video calls, and more

by Alison Green on August 30, 2024

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. A man at our events makes other attendees uncomfortable

I’m on a planning committee for an event involving a fandom generally beloved by mostly women, often mothers and daughters. This event is spread over a few days and involves speakers, tours of book/filming sites, etc.

There’s a middle-aged man, Alex, who is a fan and has attended previous in person and virtual events (where I was not on the planning committee). Alex is passionate about this IP, which is great, but he tends to monopolize the attention of a few of the attendees. When one would gently but firmly say, “I’d like to stop talking now and enjoy the tour, Alex,” he would move to another and so on.

Additionally, at past events, the committee has gotten verbal and written feedback that Alex made some people uncomfortable, mainly by approaching their daughters to talk about this IP and other similar ones. Absolutely nothing untoward happened and all the children were with their mothers, but the girls involved didn’t wish to engage in conversation and their mothers had a hard time ending the conversations with Alex.

Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her. This social media group isn’t officially part of the event, but Joyce will be there as a speaker. Alex has attended other, virtual events since then and has behaved appropriately and not interacted with Joyce.

Alex is neurodivergent, and his difficulties with communication, social cues, and rejection are absolutely part of his disability. It’s worth noting that while he clearly has higher support needs in terms of interpersonal skills, he has low support needs in his high-level career. The other planning committee members and I are struggling to figure out how to best handle this. We want Alex to be able to have a good time without impeding on other attendees’ boundaries. (As an aside, I only mention Alex’s neurodivergence as background that he processes the world differently than neurotypical adults. We have other neurodivergent folks attending and on the planning committee, and we’re trying to be as inclusive as we can.)

Past committees chose to rotate time buddying up with him to try and smooth these experiences, but that’s not something this committee is able to do. Should we quietly look for volunteers to keep Alex company? That might be our solution, but it also feels like we’d be imposing on people who are paying for this event to ask them to give up their focus on the event to engage Alex. Are we able to request that he only attend virtually instead of in person? I’d love any advice on how to proceed with being sensitive, respectful, and maintaining everyone’s boundaries while not being infantilizing or rude to Alex.

Can you just be straightforward with Alex? “We’re looking forward to seeing you at X! We want to share some feedback from previous events to help ensure everyone has a good experience. At previous events, some attendees felt you crossed boundaries by approaching kids who didn’t want to talk with an adult they didn’t know and by keeping people in conversation when they wanted to focus on the event. We are happy to welcome you back this year but ask that you not approach kids you don’t know, and be mindful that while adult attendees may enjoy a brief (five minutes or so) chat, most will prefer to return their focus to the event. We look forward to seeing you and hope you have a great time.”

It might sting, but it’s kinder to clearly spell out what he needs to do if he wants to be welcomed back in the future. You also have the option of asking him to only attend virtually, but you could give this a try first and see if it solves the problem.

Related:
telling a member that his behavior at our events is ruining it for everyone else

2. Acceptable beverages on video calls

I have a very low stakes question that I find myself overthinking in a new role. What are the generally accepted beverages and/or containers to drink out of on calls?

I would assume water bottles are fine, coffee mugs, coffee tumblers, etc., but I recently found myself thinking about things like cans of kombucha that might look like beer, a green juice with a straw, soda, that kind of thing.

My job is casual enough that it definitely doesn’t matter internally, but there’s something about seeing myself using a straw on camera that makes me feel like a toddler.

If it looks like beer, pour it in non-clear glass. Otherwise, any of those are fine, including straws! (Assuming it’s a standard straw and not, like, a Krazy Straw.)

The exception is if the meeting or your industry requires an especially high degree of polish. For example, I wouldn’t bring a soda can with a straw to a meeting with a VIP client for the first time — although it’s hard to defend why and, like so many things, it’s about cultural connotations around those items rather than any real reason.

Related:
does it look unprofessional to have an energy drink at my desk every day?

3. Management scheduled a team-building workshop to fix our bad manager

I’m part of a small team in a government agency. The team lead is my skip-level boss, Julie. Our team and our larger agency have gone through a bit of turmoil and employee tension in the past few years. There were a lot of factors, both in and out of our control, that contributed, but the main one was Julie. She has poor communication skills, is disorganized, and doesn’t seem to understand much of the work we do but refuses to admit it. This is especially a problem because our team is responsible for making sure the agency is in compliance with certain laws, so we are breaking the law if we don’t do our jobs correctly.

For years, upper management has ignored the problems with Julie, until this year when one of my coworkers reported the lack of compliance to the appropriate authorities. Upper management is now showing some interest in addressing the situation by asking us to attend a three-day-long workshop to “rebuild our working relationships.” We all anticipate that this will be a long and awkward “team-building” event that will do absolutely nothing to address the serious management issues we’re having, but will make our lives harder by interrupting our actual work.

Is it worth going to upper management as a team and telling them that we don’t think this workshop is a good use of our time, and that they should focus their energy on actually managing Julie? I don’t personally have a lot of confidence that management will actually listen to us.

You can try. The problem, of course, is that the same incompetence (and/or lack of care) that has allowed them to bury their heads in the sand about Julie up until now is the same incompetence that now makes them think a workshop on “rebuilding relationships” will somehow address it. Either they’re truly inept enough to think that’s an appropriate response, or they don’t actually care about resolving the issues and just want to be able to say they’ve done something. (However, this such a ludicrously bad attempt at “something” and so unlikely to fly with anyone exercising any real oversight that I’ve got to think incompetence is at least one of the factors in play.)

That said, it sounds like they were moved to action after the initial report, so it’s possible that applying additional pressure will move them a little more. So I say give it a try; tell them you’re happy they want to address the problems, but the workshop has nothing to do with what the issues are. Just keep your hopes low.

4. Porn Hub sticker on laptop

I work at a community college. One of my colleagues has a student in her class with a Porn Hub sticker on her laptop. We’re just curious if and how you would address this with a student?

In college? I’d leave it alone. If she doesn’t have the sense to realize not to do that once she’s at work, she’ll be informed pretty quickly.

This assumes the sticker is just words and not, say, an X-rated photo. If it were that, you’d need to tell her to stop exposing unconsenting classmates to it.

You may also like:
{ 740 comments }

{ 740 comments… read them below }

  1. My oh my*

    I had an Alex at the church I joined as an adult. He was very fixated on me and boy howdy I didn’t usually enjoy talking to him. Until! I love talking about my cat, most people do not enjoy talking about my cat. My Alex met my cat at our St Francis blessing of the animals service. After that, we talked pretty much exclusively about how wonderful my cat was. Finally found someone to talk a full ten minutes about my favorite subject . Just a little story!

    He was a long term member of the church and they handled him pretty well. The clergy were firm and direct with him, not wishy washy at all.

    2. Ratatouille*

      Maybe get Alex a pin that says “Ask me about my cat!” or other topic he likes or “Tell me your favorite X!” Then the person can approach him instead of vice versa.

      Also I too mainly talk about my cats. They’re just always doing something adorable.

      1. Annie*

        I like this idea!

        I would, however, combine it with the following: Alex can only initiate conversations with staff, as indicated by X; vendors, as indicated by Y; or presenters during Q&A when he has been given permission to speak. Anyone else he sees at the event, wait for them to speak first.

        1. JSPA*

          That seems likely more restrictive than necessary, given that We have some evidence that when he has a hundred percent clear direction, he follows those directions.

          I totally get and have dealt with the mindset that “sending apology gifts” (objects direct from a third party) does not intrinsically constitute “communication” (attempting to converse).

          But I also think 5 minutes is way too long to be trapped. And he’s only going to seem odder if he’s hovering, hoping to be spoken to.

          Maybe he can be limited to a shorter, set piece, when he initiates (as well as a ban on approaching people under whatever age you pick)?

          “So nice to see you! I’d love to talk with you about [topic], especially [subtopic]. Come find me or give me a wave if you have 5 minutes to talk.”

          And when people talk to him, “I could talk with you about this for hours, but I want to respect your time, so give me a stop signal with your hand when it’s time.”

        2. CommanderBanana*

          I think if you’ve gotten to the point with one particular attendee that you are instituting a set of rules for that specific attendee and you are asking everyone to wear a button(!) for that attendee, that attendee should no longer be attending.

          1. Emily (not a bot)*

            Yes!!! Your event is not about accommodating this one particular guy. You have other things to do!

          2. Venus*

            There is no mention of a button!

            I think Annie just meant to be clear about defining each given the context. For example staff could be defined as hotel and restaurant staff, vendors could be defined as people standing in a booth selling something, and the last one (asking a question of a presenter once given permission) is pretty self-explanatory.

              1. Fix Missing Stairs*

                Agreed. Honestly, this suggests that the event as a whole needs a clear harassment policy. At this point you could easily take a template from Worldcon or Dragoncon or any other big fandom event – publicize the policy clearly, make sure there’s a trustworthy team to report incidents, and kick out anyone who violates the policy (including Alex, when he does which it sounds like he will).

                You could also very reasonably exclude him from the start, given that he’s already stalked one of your guests. That’s the sort of behavior that reasonably has serious consequences. But you still need a policy because there’s no such thing as a community immune from this stuff.

              2. Dawbs*

                True.
                but…. if it’s happening with Alex, it will happen again with someone else.

                I would say I spend way to much work time dealing with one-off problems, except nothing is a one off problem. If one time, an 8 year old moves things so they can shimmy up a drain pipe to the rafters, then i need to make a plan to make sure no other kids have access to that drain pipe.
                (no, he didn’t make it into the rafters. but he tried! )

                so this is the time to codified rules that protect people. And there will be errors and omissions and you get to have them evolve over time.
                But overarching policies are important

          3. Ellen N.*

            I agree with you 100%

            This person has approached minors and sent gifts to the home address of someone who told him to cease contacting her.

            He should be outright banned from the event. He shouldn’t be permitted to attend in person or virtually.

            1. Anon for this one*

              Talking to minors–in public, in the presence of their parents–is not against any society-wide rule. If you want it to be against the convention rules, you have to put it in the convention rules.

              A lot of people are focusing on the fact that the kids were uncomfortable, Without asking, “in what way?”.

              Yes, kids can be uncomfortable because of skeevy behavior. But kids (like some adults) can also simply be uncomfortable dealing with someone who converses awkwardly.

              “I don’t want my kid to be groomed” is 100% essential.

              But what about, “I don’t want my kid to become uncomfortably aware that some adults grew up before there was community and training for intelligent, accomplished autistic people to learn how to mask better”?

              Frankly, that reminds me of people who are fine with billboards or seminars featuring inspirational amputees (leg bitten off by shark while surfing, still surfs!) but who pull their kid away from the heavy, old amputee on the bus.

              We’re only sort of getting better, as a society, in being supportive of young autistic people who (for want of a better way to say it) “do autism right.”

              But a lot of us older people who are on the spectrum, or spectrum-adjacent, are now expected to have a level of awareness, training and polish that’s just not entirely realistic for people who grew up without a diagnosis… in families who leaned in on their own symptoms by preaching nonconformity and a distrust of social norms… and whose patterns were well-ingrained for decades before any diagnosis or intervention.

              Are there skeevy people who use [issue of choice] as a stalking horse? Most assuredly. (Blind guys who declare a need to feel my face, go on this list too.)

              Does this make it fair or right to assume that any adult [with X trait or syndrome] who talks to kids as if they are people, is skeevy? Frankly, no.

              The missing stair theory is about accepting and excusing harmful behavior, especially when someone refuses to stop. Being tedious doesn’t make the cut. And it seems clear that he does stop, when told to stop. What he doesn’t do is universalize from individual cases. While there’s no one trait common to autistic people, “being bad at universalizing to the right degree” is fairly common. Blaming him for doing what he’s asked, but then not universalizing the right amount, seems unfair and ableist. I’m with Alison: give him better overarching rules and guidelines, and see how he does.

      2. Worldwalker*

        I have no children. Therefore, my phone is full of pictures of my cats. And I will talk about them if given even the slightest encouragement. (I will also eagerly look at other people’s pictures of their cats, dogs, horses, or just about any other pet)

        1. Lenora Rose*

          Me too, including birds, newts, fish, and shrimp (So many people on my social media seem to have terrariums and tanks lately…).

          I draw the line at arachnids though.

        2. Goldenrod*

          So relate to this. My Instagram account is 85% pictures of my cat. (The rest is food or travel.) BECUZ HE’S SO CUTE.

    3. Dek*

      I, too, will talk about my cat with minimal prompting (after a car accident, I had to get my hand stitched up. The NP doing it asked me to tell her about the accident as she was doing it to give me something to focus on and I was like “I’m gonna talk about my cat and stare at a photo instead if you don’t mind.” It’s worked for keeping me from fainting during blood draws too).

      I might have to keep this idea in my back pocket.

      (Alas, my girl haaaaates the carrier and the car, so she has never attended a blessing service)

      1. Ann Onymous*

        My church does an annual pet blessing, and for people with pets that don’t travel well, we invite them to bring a picture of their pet or something that belongs to their pet and we’ll bless that instead.

      2. CommanderBanana*

        I would love to take my dog to a blessing service, but I’m afraid the holy water would start boiling a la The Devil’s Advocate.*

        *She’s a chihuahua, I love her dearly, she is also probably in league with the dark one.

        1. Typity*

          Hah! I had a cat like that. We used to joke that she didn’t need a blessing, she needed an exorcism.

          1. CommanderBanana*

            I’m afraid that if I tried, the Devil Himself would show up and be like omg THERE you are, I’ve been looking for her EVERYWHERE.

            1. goddessoftransitory*

              “CAN’T thank you enough, I know she’s a lot, am I right? Brimstone everywhere, scorch marks on the couch…good thing I love the little dickens!’

        2. goddessoftransitory*

          Sounds like Stephen King’s Molly, Thing of Evil! (Check out his posts with her!) (She’s a Corgi.) (She’s darling.)

      3. Wendy Darling*

        I had a gynecologist who I only realized YEARS in was asking me complicated questions I had to put thought into answering right before she did uncomfortable things on purpose. Like, I was explaining my MA research during a pap smear and was like WAIT A SEC.

        1. Might Be Spam*

          When I had to get cortisone shots that had to be done slowly, my doctor would ask me computer questions. It was especially effective on me when he said he didn’t do backups. His nurse and I both got worked up and yelled at him.

    4. jasmine*

      I feel like OP is giving Alex too much grace, to be honest. I’d be direct and still let him come if it was a couple of one-off’s, but the fact that this happened multiple times and with multiple women feeling the same makes me feel like OP’s not taking these instincts seriously enough (as both women and men often do). I wouldn’t invite him into the space.

      1. Momma Bear*

        Alex moves on when someone is clear and direct, so I’d be direct talking to him in advance of the event. I’d also ask *him* what would help – would it be beneficial to him to have a staffer give him a hand signal when he’s missed a cue or would he like to have a buddy or…? Infodumping is great…until it’s not. While I don’t think anyone wants to be told they made people uncomfortable if Alex is otherwise not a problem, I’d take him aside and clue him in and come up with a mutually agreeable game day plan.

        1. Good Lord Ratty*

          So now a staffer has to be on Alex Duty, waiting to see if his behaviour is making others uncomfortable so they can hand signal him to stop? Come on, this is totally excessive.

        2. e271828*

          Why should (presumably volunteer, presumably as-usual slightly shorthanded) event staff divert a person to babysitting Alex and monitoring his interactions?

        3. Observer*

          would it be beneficial to him to have a staffer give him a hand signal when he’s missed a cue or would he like to have a buddy or…?

          That’s just way too much. A buddy means that someone is either going to miss some part of the conference or be pretty much unavailable to get stuff done. Neither is acceptable.

          Even having a staffer give him a hand signal means that someone is always going to have to be watching him. Again, that’s a lot of work.

        4. Starbuck*

          This is a sweet idea but utterly ridiculous. If he needs 1:1 minding, he should be attending virtually. There’s no way anyone has the time for that as a staff or volunteer.

      2. Starbuck*

        Way too much grace. I am personally done giving these guys benefit of the doubt when they somehow seem to only have these problems with women and girls, but clearly know where the boundary is when it’s time to talk to another man. So over it!

        1. goddessoftransitory*

          Mmmm-hmmm. Plus, it’s great and all that Alex gets the hint when someone is “clear and direct,” but that doesn’t help women meeting him for the first time who have no idea what they’re getting into, and especially kids who probably haven’t been told to be forceful when telling an adult to leave them alone.

  2. Nodramalama*

    For LW1 if he has consistently made multiple people uncomfortable at multiple events, it kind of seems like grounds to refuse him entry to future events.

    1. Sel*

      FOR REAL. I read question #1 with this mounting sense of dread and frustration. Alex needs to be told very clearly to leave other people alone at events and if he doesn’t he needs to be banned. Period. I am a neurodivergent woman and I hate with the fury of 10,000 suns all these excuses people trot out in response to creepy inappropriate behavior from (particularly) neurodivergent men. It boggles my mind that the committee for this event has apparently chosen to effectively babysit him for years instead of giving him a clear-cut code of conduct and holding him to it.

      Frankly, I don’t think Alison’s script is blunt enough. Either Alex’s social disability is such that he seems entirely incapable of reading any type of cue or making any inference, or (worst case scenario) he uses the cover of his disability as an excuse to push boundaries. Regardless of which it is, he needs to be told that his behavior needs to change or he will be kicked out—and then, crucially, if/when his behavior does not change, he needs to actually be kicked out. He is absolutely driving other attendees away with this behavior, and the event committee is effectively enabling it.

      1. Nocturna*

        Agreed. This letter made me think of both the concept of The Missing Stair and Captain Awkward’s writing on creeps. (Links to follow)

        I hope for everyone’s sake that it is just cluelessness, but regardless of the cause, he shouldn’t be sheltered at the expense of everyone else attending. If clear communication fixes his behavior, then great, but LW1, please be willing to actually take action if he doesn’t change his behavior.

        1. Nodramalama*

          What makes me think he’s not just clueless is there’s at least one instance where he’s been told to stop and didn’t.

          1. Nocturna*

            Oh, I agree. But we don’t have the details of what went down, so I’m trying to give the LW the benefit of the doubt that that situation wasn’t as bad as it sounds.

          2. Witch of Oz*

            But he did stop. The LW said “… Alex has attended other, virtual events since then and has behaved appropriately and not interacted with Joyce.”
            So it seems he IS capable of behaving appropriately. I think Alison’s advice is good. Just speak to him directly about what behaviour is/not acceptable and explain that he won’t be allowed to attend future events in person if he engages in unacceptable behaviour. But a) talking to people and b) being boring
            are not egregious.

            1. Nodramalama*

              He didn’t stop. The letter says he did not stop talking to her and sent her gifts. What appears to have stopped him is being banned.

              1. Orv*

                Being ND, he probably heard it as “stop talking to me at the event,” and didn’t realize this extended to sending gifts.

                My experience with ND people is they will often analyze rules for loopholes, because they don’t understand the spirit of them. It’s exhausting.

                1. SopranoH*

                  Looking for loopholes to the tune of mailing something to someone’s home address shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s frightening behavior.

                2. Vincent Adultman’s assistant*

                  Not to be all #notallNDpeople but uhhh NotAllNDPeople. A lot of us can manage the spirit of the law just fine, including hearing a “don’t contact me” as a “don’t contact me” instead of “please analyze this like you’re calculating how many angels can dance on a pin so you can determine the plausible deniability of sending me packages at home.”

                3. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

                  The ND people I’ve interacted with most, while overly literal (as am I) tend toward overgeneralizing rather than overly narrow interpretation, so I don’t think it usually comes from a place of “analyzing rules for loopholes”, even if it is in this case.

          3. CommanderBanana*

            Yeah, I personally am really side-eyeing the LW saying that he moves on if told to stop…but he also kept calling/texting someone AFTER being told to stop and started mailing stuff to her house.

            The planning committee is not Alex’s care team.

            1. CityMouse*

              And let’s get real, you’re bending over backwards for this one person who’s probably driven multiple attendees away with his behavior. Those parents who complained were asking for help. The behavior gets repeated, they don’t feel like this place is safe for their daughters, they won’t come back. I’m a parent and I’m wouldn’t put my kid in that situation.

              1. Lightbourne Elite*

                This happens SO OFTEN in geek spaces. People do everything to accommodate one or two dudes who for whatever reason cannot stop being inappropriate and all the women get uncomfortable and leave.

                1. House On The Rock*

                  Welcome to every MMO guild I’ve ever been in. The excuses made for problematic men and the downplaying of women’s complaints about them is pervasive in fandom and gaming, even in so-called progressive spaces. I really hope LW takes all these comments to heart and realizes that by allowing Alex to attend these events they are alienating so many other attendees and perpetuating something that’s been broken in Geekdom forever.

                2. MigraineMonth*

                  One committee came up with the solution of *asking people who paid to attend the event* to volunteer as babysitters to prevent him from making children uncomfortable?? That honestly might be the most missing-stair community reaction I’ve ever heard described.

                  Apparently just telling him not to talk to children would be infantilizing, though?

                3. Hannah Lee*

                  “One committee came up with the solution of *asking people who paid to attend the event* to volunteer as babysitters to prevent him from making children uncomfortable?? That honestly might be the most missing-stair community reaction I’ve ever heard described.”

                  Agreed! I was already waaay uncomfortable and exasperated on behalf of every single woman and child he’d ever cornered and monodroned at. But when I got to THAT part I was like WTAF!!!!

                  Given all of Alex’s previous behaviors, the *numerous* people who have raised his behavior being an issue ESPECIALLY as it relates to his approaches to children and ignoring the children’s discomfort, the parent’s discomfort and the parent’s attempts to end the interactions AND the blatant example that not only disputes the fiction that “he stops when asked” but is an example of him actually *escalating* contact by contacting his target at home, I would take this change of event leadership as an opportunity to bar him. Or at the very least come up with guidelines for interaction for this event/group, based on the other groups people have suggested, and have it apply to ALL participants (because if there’s an Alex, there will be an Alex 2.0 now pushyier and more unsettling) AND take complaints seriously, take action consistently, up to and including banning people, who violate the behavior guidelines.

                  Because otherwise, LW is prioritizing the experience of Alex and Alex alone over the experience of every other person attending.

              2. goddessoftransitory*

                If I had complained about Alex and brought my daughter to another event, only to spot him again, I would walk out and probably send an email earful to the committee. Because even if he avoids me/my kid, how on earth could either of us relax or enjoy ourselves?

                Plus, it has an unhealthy tinge of “oh, he gets to leave YOU alone; don’t worry, he’ll focus on someone else from now on” parish-shuffling vibes.

              3. Some Cajun Queen*

                Absolutely this. I have two daughters. If I complained about some guy who wouldn’t leave my daughters alone, and then I saw him at the event the next time, bothering some other young girls, I would (rightfully) assume that the staff had held his comfort above that of my underage kids and stop attending. I hope, at the minimum, the staff is reaching out to parents who have complained and explaining the reasoning for why they are continuing to allow this person at in-person events. I don’t think “he’s neurodivergent” is enough of an excuse for “he regularly makes the majority demographic of our attendees uncomfortable and has harassed a speaker.”

        2. Nocturna*

          The Pervocracy’s post on the Missing Stair:
          http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html

          The original set of Captain Awkward letters on creepers, with a long but very educational comments section regarding creeps and creepy behavior:
          https://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-group-has-a-case-of-the-creepy-dude-how-do-we-clear-that-up/

          The dedicated Captain Awkward post on creepiness:
          https://captainawkward.com/2012/08/11/the-c-word/

        3. learnedthehardway*

          Clear rules are the answer here, I think. If Alex is genuinely neuro-divergent and simply lacks social skills, it is highly likely that he will appreciate clear, specific rules to follow. They will make him more successful and actually reduce his own stress at interacting with people. Tell him to limit himself to a few minutes, only speak with adults, and move on after a limited time.

          I have a few people in my life who are on the spectrum – they cling to clearly defined rules of social interaction, because they have no ability to read the room or understand the unspoken social rules.

          1. Goldenrod*

            “If Alex is genuinely neuro-divergent and simply lacks social skills, it is highly likely that he will appreciate clear, specific rules to follow.”

            Yes, agree with this! Alison is suggesting trying this first and giving him a chance. If it doesn’t work, he can be told he has to attend virtually instead. But I think it’s nicer to give him a chance to see if clear directives work.

          2. Festively Dressed Earl*

            Cosigned. I’m ADHD and appreciate being told if something I’m doing is an issue, because I know I can be clueless about it. That’s what grown people do; when someone tells you a behavior makes them uncomfortable – you thank them for the information and then you stop doing it.

      2. Random European*

        “It boggles my mind that the committee for this event has apparently chosen to effectively babysit him for years instead of giving him a clear-cut code of conduct and holding him to it.”

        Considering that it’s a fandom event, I’m actually not surprised. While a lot of cons have gotten better at tackling problem attendees, the geek social fallacies are still very much a thing.

        1. House On The Rock*

          Yeah my mind went right to the Geek Social Fallacies and all the ways I’ve seen them play out over my decades as a girl and woman in fandom and gaming circles. I feel awful for all the attendees and guests who’ve had to deal with him and am, honestly, frustrated he’s been given so much grace…especially with younger people!

      3. coffee*

        Yes, either he can’t understand and being very blunt is a kindness, or he’s pretending he doesn’t understand and being blunt is necessary to rip that excuse away and protect the attendees.

        Also, I would absolutely bring up his behaviour towards Joyce, and ban him from that session. She doesn’t need to be worried about how he’ll behave in a space she can’t easily leave. The group might not have been an official part of the event but it’s okay for actions to have consequences.

        Finally, as a committee, you need to have a plan in case things go badly with this. Do you have any security at the event? Who will talk to him if he misbehaves? What are the consequences you will enforce — what gets a verbal warning, what gets him evicted from the event? Do you need a code of conduct for the event? How will you work with the venue staff? How will you be alerted to any issues while they’re happening?

        You might be able to get good advice from other fan conventions/events/etc.

      4. Worldwalker*

        This.

        The rules for public behavior exist because they’re necessary for people to function together. They’re not just arbitrary rules of some sort, decided on by committees of people giggling evilly as they twirl their moustaches. “Don’t creep on little girls” means don’t creep on little girls for everyone. It’s not “don’t creep on little girls unless you’re neurodivergent; then creeping on little girls is okay.” It’s about the effect of the behavior on others.

        For example, “Don’t scream during a concert” is a rule because it allows everyone to enjoy the concert. It’s not “Don’t scream during a concert unless you’re a little baby.” Whether the screaming is coming from a 6-month-old baby or its parents having a public shouting match, it still prevents people from enjoying the concert, which is what they’re there for. (and if the screamer is in fact a baby, it’s likely that the baby is even more miserable than everyone else there — for the love of Mike, get a sitter; that’s a human being, not some sort of decorative accessory!)

        The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. You can’t put Alex ahead of the whole rest of the attendees.

        1. PCwhisperer*

          You’ve summed it up perfectly. Whether he does or doesn’t have bad intentions, the girls still have to put up with his behavior.

          1. Edwina*

            As I was reading, I, too, was thinking “coffee” and “Worldwalker” have summed this up perfectly.

          2. goddessoftransitory*

            This. THIS. Society keeps deciding that a man’s feelings trump those of every woman and girl in his path.

            His intentions do not matter past a certain point. What matters is how he’s coming across to every other person who has to deal with him.

        2. Ms. Eleanous*

          “Don’t scream during a concert unless you’re a little baby.”

          WorldWalker, I wish you were in charge of the world.

        4. Boof*

          I’ll just add /unless the concert is supposed to be family friendly/ in which case yeah a little extra noise from shriking small children should be permitted (though endless wailing is obviously a different thing entirely).
          I guess that’s the thing here is it sounds like they are trying hard to make it reasonably accommodating for neurodivergence but it does sound like there are no further reasonable accommodations to be had if clearly telling alex there’s been multiple complaints about X and Y behaviors and alex continues to do X and Y, just continually moving the target on who they do it to. They don’t sound like the most harmful behaviors (sounds more like just endless talking about fandom subject rather than anything more alarming) so I get why they’ve been unsure but still, as others have said, if you’re getting this many complaints there’s probably 10x more who are negatively impacted and just not saying anything, and at some point being inclusive of that one person starts excluding too many others.

          1. Dark Macadamia*

            I think the “unless it’s family friendly” is good to keep in mind – if babies are the target demographic the rules will be different than if it’s an adult-centered event where babies are allowed. In this case, it sounds like maybe the main/intended audience is younger girls so their needs should really be centered at events, with other attendees being a “bonus” and not a priority.

      5. LW 1*

        I appreciate this perspective! I don’t know what planning committees in the past have done with Alex, but it’s evident this new committee needs to have a very blunt conversation with him.

        1. Rebecca*

          If a significant amount of women are telling you they are uncomfortable, trust them.

          You described how he stalked a speaker at your conference (because that’s what he did). That should end the conversation right there. What if he does the same thing to an attendee? You know he’s capable of it, they know he’s capable of it, and you’re not taking that seriously. These women are taking it seriously, and they’re being ignored. Please trust women. Don’t allow him to attend.

          1. CityMouse*

            This. He’s made multiple girls uncomfortable. Frankly, expecting them to put up with this is unacceptable. I would absolutely not attend any kind of meeting with an organization that didn’t take steps to protect their attendees, especially kids.

          2. goddessoftransitory*

            And not just adult attendees, either. Basically soft-pedaling around Alex is eventually going to blow up in this organization’s face legally–can you imagine a parent deciding to go to the police, and the cops getting an earful of what he’s been doing/countenanced doing for years??

            1. Reluctant Mezzo*

              Conventions have run into such people before, did not police them or ban then, and then were sued by (rightfully) offended people. Setting up a Special Committee for Alex means the rest of the people get less help on anything they might need. Fan resources are limited. Spending too many of them on Alex? Gets old.

        2. jasmine*

          LW, when I was reading the letter I was surprised by how lightly you took a lot of what’s happened. I know there are biases (conscious or unconscious) against neurodivergent folks, which I think could maybe explain one or two instances in your letter. A blunt conversation would’ve made sense if we were only two paragraphs into your letter. But you’re stretching plausible deniability pretty far for this guy.

          Sometimes someone being “other” is what sets off our alarm bells. But often, so often, alarm bells are ignored because “technically nothing untoward happened.” You’re telling us that multiple women have felt uncomfortable in multiple contexts. If something untoward hasn’t happened already, there’s a good chance it will.

          So often the bid to be more inclusive and fair to men who are minorities, leads to less inclusive for women (which is especially frustrating for the women who are also part of those minorities!). If I was a woman and saw this guy still invited to events, I would stop going. I wouldn’t feel welcome anymore.

          And I feel like we’re missing important details from your letter. Was Joyce’s address public? Was he told to stop mailing things at any point before he was banned from the group (either by the group or by Joyce?)? The way you describe it makes it sounds like he mailed something more than once. What exactly made the mothers/daughters uncomfortable?

          At the very least, I agree with what someone else has said about not letting him into the event where Joyce is a speaker. She shouldn’t need to worry about him when she’s kind of beholden to be around. You may say he doesn’t deserve it, but I think any decent person who understands that they deeply upset someone else would naturally opt out going to that person’s presentation. If Alex is a decent but just clueless guy, as you say, then it would make a lot of sense to clue him in on how he shouldn’t attend that one.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            Also, no one has a right to apologize or fix things. No one has a right to a certain social group. One of the natural consequences to really messing up with a person or group is that you don’t always get another chance with them.

            It sucks, especially if you’re sensitive to rejection or can’t find another person/group like them, but that’s part of taking responsibility for your mistakes.

        3. CommanderBanana*

          Also, LW, if you are finding yourself drafting all sorts of new rules and policies for just one person, that is a flag that that person maybe just shouldn’t be attending events.

          2. goddessoftransitory*

            This. The phrase “more trouble than it’s worth” should be coming to mind with Alex.

            This fandom is important to him; that’s fine. But it’s not said fandom’s responsibility to hold his hand/soft-pedal/tacitly okay his behavior no matter how much it means to him.

          3. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

            Yeah. A clear explanation “Don’t approach minors” after the FIRST instance would have been appropriate. This is way too late.

        4. A*

          We had an Alex in one of the geek spaces I frequent. The people in charge didn’t want to have the awkward conversation, they said he wasn’t good with people and didn’t mean any harm. I was pulled aside when I joined and quietly warned about Alex. I did the same when other women joined. It only stopped when he got a *second* restraining order from a *second* woman he followed home, after which he was banned. Don’t let it get to that point.

        5. Attractive Nuisance*

          LW, there used to be an Alex in my life. He is in jail now.

          Many people in my social circle were shocked when they found out about this person’s crimes. Because somehow, despite his constant inappropriate and creepy behavior, they just assumed he was incapable of actually harming anyone. Maybe they thought his apparent lack of a filter meant he couldn’t be doing bad things in secret. They were wrong.

          It sounds like the social group as a whole is very committed to seeing Alex as a harmless weirdo who simply appears creepy. I understand the impulse to not want to assume the worst about someone. But I think you need to at least strongly consider the possibility that he is being creepy because he actually is a creep.

          It might be good – at least as a thought exercise – to think about what you would do if a random, total stranger middle-aged man started showing up to your events and talking to underage girls and mailing things to people’s homes. What is your policy for that? Is that policy being applied to Alex?

      6. Generic Name*

        THIS. My son is autistic and he doesn’t creep people out because we’ve explicitly explained unspoken social stuff to him.

      7. JFC*

        OP should also consider the long-term impacts Alex’s behavior might have. I was shopping with my mom about 25 years ago and a man kept following us around the store, not giving us personal space, etc. Even if his behavior was unintentional (I realize now he was likely neurodivergent), it was creepy and made us extremely uncomfortable — a core memory I still have all these years later and directly associate with that store. OP, do you really want some attendees to associate memories of your event with this type of behavior? You’re running the risk of it being thought of as uncomfortable and maybe even a bit scary instead of a fun time shared among family and fans.

      8. Dust Bunny*

        Another ND woman here: +1,000.

        Sorry, other people don’t have to accommodate my social skills deficits to the point of making themselves uncomfortable (since it sounds like everyone else here has a very normal, reasonable comfort zone). Tell him. Tell him bluntly.

        I’ve been on both sides of this: I have overtalked and followed people when I should have backed off (lots of retrospective cringing) and I have also been cornered by people who would not let me go and who made me super uncomfortable.

      9. LWH*

        Even if Alex truly cannot help it and does not understand yet his behavior is wrong, you have to ask if all these women and girls at this event they’re attending are signing up to be test subjects for him to learn appropriate social behavior on. “He didn’t know it was wrong” probably didn’t make the woman being stalked feel better about it happening, even moreso for the little girls having a grown man not leave them alone. Alex could mean well and just need help learning this stuff, but none of these attendees signed up to be his teachers. They want to enjoy the event without being harassed.

    2. Jellybeans*

      You cannot ban people for being disabled, just because others are uncomfortable with the presence of a disabled person. He isn’t actually doing anything wrong.

      It isn’t wrong to approach other people at a fan event to strike up a conversation about how much you love the thing the fan event is celebrating.

      It sounds like none of the people are directly, clearly saying “I am ending this conversation now” or “do not talk to my child” – they’re bothered that a very disabled person isn’t capable of picking up on subtle social cues.

      1. canuckian*

        They’re not banning him for his disability, they’re banning him for his behaviour, which he very clearly CAN control.

        Parents with daughters had a hard time getting him to end convos with their children-yet he walked away from the adult women who asked him with a “gentle” mention of moving on? That’s a choice, having nothing to do with any disability. (So yes, they did ask. Stop blaming the victims, please.)

        I agree with the commenter up thread who said he should be banned from Joyce’s talk–after all he pretty much stalked her and there’d be no discussion about banning him if he were neuro-typical.

        My brother (in his 60s) is undiagnosed ASD (never got a diagnosis as a kid and getting one now wouldn’t be helpful). He lives on his own, has a job and can take care of most life things. Now, he WILL talk your ear off and bore you to tears-but he often doesn’t realise he’s doing it, his social skills are a bit off. But if someone tells him, he’ll stop. Although I’m pretty sure he’d not do that to little girls as he’s not comfortable interacting with young children, mostly because he’s not around kids in general.

        And I think the LW should be very direct with Alex–my brother has the habit, of when you ask him a direct question, of not answering it directly. I then have to stop him and say, no, THIS is what I asked. Ask Alex to basically repeat back what you’ve said, so you know he understands–both what he’s not to do AND what the consequences are. I also do this with my brother because if I don’t, then things can get missed/misunderstood.

        Having a disability/being neurodivergent does not excuse any adult for creepy, inappropriate behaviour. I think it’s a kindness that this committee is willing to consider having this discussion with Alex without just banning him–which they would be within their rights to do.

        1. SimonTheGreyWarden*

          This. My husband has ADHD and probably is on the autism spectrum (though like your brother isn’t interested in a diagnosis at this point in his life). He will follow me from room to room talking about his special interests until I clearly tell him I have work I need to do and don’t have more time to listen. But you know what? I signed up for that KNOWING it’s how he was (and I also have ADHD and a tendency to hyperfixate sometimes, so glass houses, throwing stones, etc).

      2. RW*

        eh, it sounds like some people ARE saying that, and (most of the time) he’s leaving them and then doing the exact same behaviour with someone else or (once, that we know of) he ignored that and kept going. Perhaps he does need it explicitly spelled out that actually most of the time what he is doing is inappropriate/not what other attendees are looking for – and especially, if he is making kids uncomfortable it is ok to give him a blanket please do not approach kids you don’t know, in this situation I come down on the side of protecting kids who are trying to enjoy an event and may well not be able to say please stop talking to me

        1. Hyaline*

          It seems like he’s been told on a few occasions “please stop talking to ME” or “MY CHILD does not want to talk” but never blanket “stop initiating conversations with children PERIOD” or “DO NOT talk to people during tours” and etc. Someone with difficulty picking up cues could absolutely think “OK, I’m doing great here! I’m not talking to that person who told me they were done! I found another friend to chat with!” not realizing that “stop doing this *with me*” was really a “talking now/to minors/this level of monopolizing is a problem, stop doing it, period” situation.

        2. CommanderBanana*

          ^^ This. This is tantamount to saying that it’s ok if I walk up to someone and shove them, as long as I don’t do it again if they say stop, and it’s ok to walk over to the person next to them and shove them because that person didn’t tell me to stop.

          1. Hyaline*

            Not really, though? That is–we all know shoving is never ok, but talking to others is frequently ok. It’s usually ok. In fact, it’s very often encouraged, welcomed, and considered a marker of social competence. He was supposed to get “a normal human activity is out of bounds across the board here because one person said no?” A person with high social function wouldn’t get that, let alone someone with difficulty reading cues.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              But surely we all know that continuing to call/text someone after being told not to and then mailing things to their home after being cut off is never okay, yes?

              1. Dust Bunny*

                If you’re ND, not necessarily. I wouldn’t do that now, but younger me might have thought they just meant “don’t call”, not “don’t contact. However, younger me would have been like 15.

                This is why you tell him bluntly and give him the chance to reform, but then you ban him if he doesn’t after he’s had it spelled out.

                1. Jennifer Strange*

                  I was specifically responding to Hyaline’s comment that “we all know shoving is never ok”. And he has been told bluntly when he was told to stop calling and texting someone. He didn’t stop and was removed from the group as a result. Even then he didn’t stop!

            2. Malarkey01*

              This is someone that MULTIPLE people have complained about, someone a committee has to babysit, behavior that went over years, and led to harassing a women at her home… this is not one person missing social nuances or overstepping boundaries. This is someone who has blown by clear social norms and constructs and trust with its coming from several people and over multiple years that this is someone who is doing something clearly wrong.

              You can absolutely decide someone is making a space unsafe or driving away your attendees and stop it.

            3. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

              Adults approaching minors they don’t know, or at least whose parents they don’t know, is a very different situation from just “talking to others”! Asking Alex not to do that is more like going back to the social norm that applies outside of the event.

      3. Productivity Pigeon*

        But he IS doing something wrong. They’re not being uncomfortable by the presence of a disabled person, they’re being uncomfortable at his behavior.

        Targeting young girls and not ending conversations and sending stuff to someone who clearly told them they were bothered by their behavior aren’t all that subtle social cues.

        I say this as someone who is neurodivergent myself.

        1. learnedthehardway*

          It doesn’t sound like he is specifically targeting young girls. More like he will talk to ANYONE available about his obsession with this particular IP – be they man, woman, child, or purple-people-eater.

          He needs a rule laid out for him explicitly that adults may not approach or talk to children unless their parents include them in the conversation.

          1. The Unionizer Bunny*

            Barney was technically a dinosaur, wasn’t he.

            I now have a horrifying mental image, though, of a PSA about Alex casually chatting him up thinking he’s only a cosplayer, and then getting eaten because Alex didn’t notice the subtle cues that had everyone else fleeing in terror.

      4. allathian*

        Oh please. It’s not okay to use your disability to creep on other people. He needs to be told by someone in authority (i.e. who can kick him out of the event and ban him from attending future events) that talking to children you don’t know is not okay, except possibly if the kid approaches *him* first, I can imagine that there might be some ND kids who’d love to talk to him.

        Sounds like this event needs a code of conduct for attendees.

        Disabled people have as much right as others to attend public events, but if their *behavior* towards other people (as opposed to their mere existence in a public space with no interactions) is perceived by those very same people to be creepy, they have to cease and desist when told to do so.

        1. LW 1*

          We 100% do need a code of conduct, thank you for the reminder! And if he attends, we’re definitely going to need to have a conversation with him to spell out the guidelines.
          FWIW, his behavior in the past at events has been more on the “annoying someone who doesn’t want to have an in-depth conversation while they’re trying to look at a filming site” side. He’s just really enthusiastic. I hesitate to cast any man speaking to a child as creepy. But I don’t want to make excuses either. It’s a hard balance. I appreciate your insights.

          1. WellRed*

            I am acquainted with a few people like Alex, men and women. I hate getting mired in conversations but they aren’t creepy. Just annoying. But I also don’t see anyone being able to get through to Alex. He may not have executive function(or whatever) to maintain boundaries.

          2. DameB*

            A suggestion: If he has trouble with social regulation, you can suggest he bring a support person who can notify him when he’s violating boundaries.

            If he can’t take a blunt straightforward instruction — like when Joyce told him to stop talking to her — then he needs to have a mitigation in place and you sound like you can’t provide that mitigation.

            Also, you said Joyce will be there, so in your blunt conversation, you need to include “Do not approach Joyce.” Because he’s already indicated that he won’t respect her boundaries. And you may want to have a conversation with Joyce about what she’s comfortable with regarding this man who repeatedly ignored her “no.”

            1. oooooooooh*

              The support person is a very good idea if Alex is truly just annoying people! However, as someone who has been stalked, and taking OP’s description of Alex’s behavior at face value, if Joyce is a featured speaker at this event and OP’s team values her well-being and safety, they should ask Alex to attend only virtually. Stalking is extremely dedicated, terrifying behavior, and being neurodivergent does not excuse it in any fashion. If they allow him to attend, they’re putting her right back in his crosshairs.

          3. Nancy*

            Have a clear code of conduct, including how to anonymously report someone and what happens if you don’t follow it. Make sure Alex and everyone has read it. assign one person as a safety coordinator and make sure everyone has that person’s name. I belong to several volunteer-run communities and this is what they do for their events. However, they most likely would also ban Alex if they knew about the situation with Joyce.

          4. Joana*

            “Is this creepy or not” shouldn’t be the only way we measure things like this just because it’s the first thing that comes to mind when we think of “man approaching women/little girls in an inappropriate way.” I absolutely have people I don’t want to talk to not because they’re creepy but because every conversation with them is exhausting. And in a fandom space, there are going to be certain discussion topics that are automatically exhausting for some people no matter how innocuous the IP itself is. Not to mention the already mentioned reason in the letter that people just want to be able to enjoy the tour, speakers etc without someone insisting discussing their experience of the event/fandom is more important than letting the other person enjoy the experience.

            I do hope that the guy just needs someone to put it in blunt terms that he needs to cool it in general, not just with the one person at a time who’s saying to leave them alone. But if that’s not enough, “sacrificing” one person so the rest can have a good time is probably the best course of action.

            1. Joana*

              And on top of that, fandom spaces have a higher than usual instance of members being non-racial minority groups (although there are racial minority groups as well of course) which means a lot of the people he’s (intentionally or not) accosting are likely to be neurodivergent as well. I’d be a little miffed if I were the mother of an autistic kid who’s been working hard to keep her acting appropriately, removing her when she’s having meltdowns etc only to see an autistic man have free-reign to do what he wants, seemingly without repercussion.

              1. Ineffable Bastard*

                As a parent to two neurodivergent children, I could not agree more with you.

                His possibly good intentions and possible neurodivergence do not matter as much as their impact on others. They can inform the tone and approach of measures taken by the organization, but not hinder these measures.

          5. CommanderBanana*

            You need an attendee code of conduct built into your ticketing system or in your communications that says that if you are attending, you agree to abide by this code of conduct, and breaking it could lead to you being removed from the event and/or banned from returning.

            You ALSO need to establish policies and procedures for when – when, not if – Alex or another attendee violates that code of conduct, and a policy and procedure for how attendees can alert you during – during, not after – the event, and what steps you take then.

            All organizations that host events should have these two things in place before something happens.

          6. nodramalama*

            Nobody is saying that any man who talks to a child is creepy. But most men who talk to children do not get multiple complaints about him making them uncomfortable. And they don’t refuse to abide by boundaries, which seems like happened with Joyce.

          7. jasmine*

            > I hesitate to cast any man speaking to a child as creepy.

            But is that what’s happening? I wouldn’t assume that the mothers/daughters only feel uncomfortable because a man is talking to a child. Especially when the parent is around.

          9. lost academic*

            Focus entirely on the actions, not the motivations. The actions are not acceptable. There is a hard line, even if there is also a grey area, and having the rules spelled out makes it easier for everyone to understand what they should and shouldn’t do, should and shouldn’t have to put up with, and importantly, who is responsible for enforcing the requirements and consequences.

            Potential neurodivergence might be an explanation for behaviors, but it is not an excuse or a reason to tolerate unsafe behavior without consequences. If someone cannot adhere to the minimum requirements of the group, they can’t be there. Full stop, end of story. Sometimes you have to explicitly remind organizers, etc, that it is not just OK but often necessary to remember you do not need to be all things to all people, because in trying to be that way, you often fail to succeed at the primary purpose in the first place.

          10. Meep*

            FYI – it is OK to a say a man speaking to a child is creepy if the child is creeped out by it. And it sorta sounds like they are?

            1. goddessoftransitory*

              Exactly. “Creepy” doesn’t necessarily mean “sexually inappropriate.” It can also be really uncomfortable for a kid to be in a discussion with an adult and having that adult just–not treat them as the age they are. Even enthusiastic yammering about Transformers is going to come across really off if the person doesn’t seem to modify their speech to an appropriate degree for a ten year old. And little kids are going to be a LOT more hesitant to walk away, or understand how to steer a conversation or anything else read as “being rude to a grown up.”

              1. DisgruntledPelican*

                Sure, creepy doesn’t have to mean sexually inappropriate. But we should also realize that to many people, children and adults alike, creepy unfortunately just means “does not look/behave like me.”

          11. Cthulhu’s Librarian*

            … the thing is, LW 1, that solving one of these needs automatically solves the other. Having a code of conduct means you don’t need to have a conversation with him, because you’ve had it with ALL the attendees.

            A code of conduct should not be vague or confusing. It should be exactly as clear as you think the conversation with Alex needs to be, and then perhaps 10% clearer. Write it to that point, and then the only conversation you’ll need to have with Alex is “Do not attend if you can not follow the code of conduct. We will ban you if you violate it.”

            Which should, coincidentally, be in the code of conduct.

            Focus on the code first, well before you start worrying about what you need to say and do for Alex specifically.

        2. tabloidtainted*

          The knee-jerk reaction to every boundary crossing ND person can’t be “they’re using their disability to be creeps,” nor can it be to suggest that the perception of non-NDs should govern the interaction. Sometimes their behavior is their disability.

          1. Peanut Hamper*

            Sometimes their behavior is their disability.

            Wait, what?

            No, the disability is not picking up on social cues. But they can learn to control their behavior, or can have someone with them to help them figure it out.

            Nobody is suggesting that Alex is using his disability to be a creep. But a side-effect of his disability is that he’s creeping other people out, and that’s the issue.

            suggest that the perception of non-NDs should govern the interaction

            This is very close to “I wasn’t sexually harassing her, I was actually giving her a compliment!” territory, so you might want to rethink this part.

          2. Nonsense*

            And if their disability means they cannot behave within the bounds of acceptable social interaction then they don’t get to be there. Disability is never an excuse to behave poorly. A crying screaming meltdown caused by overstimulating? They need to leave until they’ve calmed down. Unable to stay quiet during a presentation? They need to leave. An OCD self-soothe that requires people to line up by height? Absolutely not.

            Constantly chatting up young girls because you were told to stop talking to that girl but this is a different girl so it’s OK? He’s damn lucky he hasn’t been maced. And he’s in the wrong. It is not and will never be the responsibility of others to manage his problem.

            1. UKDancer*

              This so much. I go to a ballet class and one of the other dancers has a grown up son with some learning difficulties but who loves theatre. He has difficulties being still and quiet and concentrating for long periods. As a result she doesn’t take him to the evening performances, she takes him to the relaxed matinee performances which are designed to be more welcoming to people with learning difficulties. He has a great time and is made welcome.

              She doesn’t decide to take him to the evening shows because however much he enjoys theatre, it doesn’t mean he gets to stop everyone else enjoying it.

            2. Kez*

              I appreciate your point of view here, and I agree that it’s important to think of the needs of everyone without prioritizing any one point of view when it comes to running events. However, I think that tabloidtainted may have had a point that’s being missed in this conversation.

              You note that someone must behave within the bounds of “acceptable social interaction” but I think that is the crux of the issue here. These are bounds which are created as a group and interpreted individually. While it may feel natural to some of us that staying silent during a presentation is a hard social boundary, there may be some people for whom engaging with speakers has always been represented as a way of indicating that the audience is listening and supporting their points. In a space like a con, the rules of engagement are not always clear, even to folks who don’t have difficulty parsing “hints” rather than statements.

              There are also, I think, some cases where those of us who feel more naturally “in tune with” the norms and boundaries of socialization make assumptions and exceptions on an individual level that is up for interpretation. To use the noise during presentation example, if someone has a medical device that beeps occasionally to alert them or because the device can’t be muted, I think many people would argue that individual should be accommodated in the case of a presentation, even if it occasionally makes a distraction for others. The same might be said for someone who has a neurological condition that creates an audible tic or an individual with cardiovascular issues who breathes very loudly. However, there are some folks that would say the organization needs to maintain a quiet space for the audience and should configure an alternate accommodation that allows the individual to hear the speakers without the speakers and audience being distracted. There isn’t necessarily a “right” answer, so much as there is a need for thoughtful discussion, careful planning to ensure everyone is being treated with respect, and community agreements on what norms are worth enforcing.

              All of that is to say, I think the folks suggesting a Code of Conduct which lays out expectations and consequences clearly are providing an important piece of feedback to the letter writer. This gathering is a community endeavor, and the community should consider what the “rules of engagement” are to best accommodate the people invested in this IP and their mutual goal to enjoy this event.

              I will also make a suggestion that the letter writer and their event team might consider creating a space or scheduled event where folks who want to connect socially and “dive deep” into the IP can gather for that express purpose. Essentially, rather than telling someone “because some people don’t like it we need you to not do this at all” you’d be creating the opportunity for folks who do like that kind of interaction (I’m sure this guy isn’t the only one who wants to geek out for 30 mins at a time!) to have a space where they are expressly encouraged to engage with others in that way. And if someone is overstepping boundaries outside of that space, there is an easy redirect to be offered. “Hey man, I appreciate the enthusiasm but save the full chronology canon discussion for the Superfan Discussion Dinner later.”

              The Code of Conduct combined with a space where people are expressly encouraged to geek out (as long as they respect someone’s clear “I think I’m done with this conversation, thanks!”) would make for an event that’s smoother for both the folks that are there to experience something more low-key as well as the “super fans” that want to geek out together. I hope the event goes swimmingly!

              1. Silver Robin*

                channeling the behavior by making one space specifically for it is a very good idea. Alex wants to wax poetic about this or that detail of the IP? Alex can do that at the Deep Dives and Drinks session or whatever; that can also be explicitly or implicitly age restricted, which reduces him talking the ear off a minor and weirding out the kid and the parent. That further reinforces that situations outside that space are *not* for talking to anyone within a five foot radius about it and nauseum.

          3. Jackalope*

            Whether or not this is a part of his disability, that doesn’t mean that he gets to act this way consequence-free. The right of all of the other attendees to enjoy the conference without either a) having to fend off unwanted conversations with an unknown adult (girls), or b) spend energy and capital trying to protect their daughters from a random stranger (moms) outweighs Alex’s right to attend and strike up annoying and socially off conversations with whoever he wants. I agree that there are many things connected to disability whose social stigma is entirely unearned, but “I don’t want a random strange man forcing my daughter into a conversation that is making her feel uncomfortable” is stigmatized for a good reason. This might suck for Alex, but he’s had many many conversations with people in the fandom telling him to buzz off and he either can’t or won’t accept it.

            (I’m also skeptical of your claim because literally every time I’ve heard your argument stated in that way it’s about defending the right of a man to make women uncomfortable and assuming that his right to say whatever outweighs her right to feel safe. So there’s that.)

            1. Kelly*

              I’m very much in agreement with your second point about the perspective that a woman or marginalized individual’s sense of feeling safe is outweighed by the nebulous defense of an individual to make others feel not at ease and safe in their social or work setting.

              I work in higher education with student workers in a open public space with few access restrictions. This means we get individuals similar to Alex, who knowingly or unknowingly make others around them feel not at ease and not safe. The situation in my workplace is made more difficult by my male colleague who is the student supervisor. He’s difficult to work with for various reasons including his own lack of self awareness in his interpersonal skills and tendency to do the absolute bare minimum necessary to pass his performance reviews. I’ve also come to doubt his honesty and reliability including multiple incidents where he’s given misleading information to our boss, omitting crucial parts that make him look less than good.

              He’s either ignored or pushed aside multiple reports by mostly female student workers of individuals behaving in ways that don’t make them feel safe at work. There has been at least one report of his lack of action to the college’s dean of students. Some of them finally had enough this past spring and went directly to his boss and shared their complaints. The result has been more oversight of him by our boss and he’s not taking it very well. The boss knows that he’s difficult to work with but really can’t do much of anything due to various factors including budget issues and departmental office politics. As a result, we’re stuck with him for the time being and we have to work around him and the areas he’s lacking in.

          4. MassMatt*

            “The knee-jerk reaction to every boundary crossing ND person can’t be… to suggest that the perception of non-NDs should govern the interaction.”

            Whose reaction SHOULD govern the interaction? This is extremely disempowering to people (especially women and girls) being subjected to unwanted and/or creepy behavior. Being ND is not a license to act however you want without consequence.

            By this logic why not tell a girl to just shut up when someone sticks his hand up her skirt, after all he’s ND and this is how his disability manifests and you’re NOT ND so your perception is irrelevant?

            1. The Unionizer Bunny*

              tabloidtainted said that it shouldn’t be the knee-jerk reaction. If you have to come up with a specific scenario (any scenario) to justify having this default reaction in all circumstances, you are proving tabloidtainted’s point: that we use judgment to evaluate each individual case instead selecting a single default reaction. Yes, you’ve been able to think of a situation where the reaction you endorse as the default would be appropriate. tabloidtainted has the empathy to imagine other situations. Can we come up with a neutral circumstance-examining default response for when we don’t have enough information to KNOW how to react, instead of insisting that the situations we’ve encountered in our personal history encompass the scope of all possible human interactions and we don’t need to imagine anyone else ever having a different set of circumstances?

          5. Lightbourne Elite*

            He has been told multiple times by multiple people that he’s behaving inappropriately and he stalked someone. How much are women and girls meant to put up with?!

            1. Meep*

              Whenever I describe my BIL to men, they always try to make excuses that he is “autistic”. Nope. He is just an entitled, ego-centric ass who likes to talk over people (especially women) and needs to be the smartest person in the room. Drives me nuts.

              Especially since I know and work with a lot of ND men and they have figured out by their early twenties how to act.

          7. Irish Teacher.*

            It really doesn’t sound like this is a knee-jerk reaction. It sounds like there is a long history and he has been told a number of times that people are uncomfortable with his behaviours.

            Yes, sometimes behaviours can be due to a disability and I agree that people shouldn’t jump to “this person is using their disability to be a creep” as soon as an ND person doesn’t something that seems odd to neurotypical people. As I mentioned below a colleague of mine told a story only yesterday about an autistic neighbour of hers who had people thinking he was “being creepy,” but the difference is that once he got the impression that people were uncomfortable with him, he asked her (and presumably other parents and grandparents) if it was OK to continue talking to their kids because he didn’t want to make anybody uncomfortable. She assured him that she was fine with it and her grandkids were not uncomfortable with his interactions with them.

            I realise some neurodivergent people might not pick up on others’ discomfort, but once two or three people mentioned being uncomfortable…well, most neurotypical people can at that point realise there is something that is bothering others. They may not know what it is and may simply decide they’d better not speak to children at all or may simply feel uncomfortable at such events and stop going, fearing that they will do something perceived to be wrong, but I don’t think that neurodivergency explains continuing to contact Joyce after she explicitly asked him not to or continuing to behave the same way at events after being told by numerous people that they want him to stop.

          8. Meep*

            As someone who is ND herself, and is admittedly high-functioning, there is a lot of expected leeway for ND men than women. Many ND women are forced to mask because society demands. Whether you like that stance or not, and whether it is fair or not, women have always been forced to make men feel “comfortable” at our own expense. The feelings of multiple women and children should come first and foremost in this case, over ONE man who happens to be ND.

        1. CityMouse*

          This. His issues aren’t his fault but they are his responsibility. He stalked someone, he approaches girls at these events. It’s not acceptable to tell women and girls their safety doesn’t matter.

      6. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Certainly.
        They should not ban someone for being disabled.
        But likewise neither does a disability prevent the organization from setting rules to eliminate creepy AH behavior. Right down to banning someone who continues to violate those rules. And best part with what Alison suggests? If he is honestly unaware of the impression he makes, it lets him learn rather than getting banned if a situation escalates.

      7. sunnyday*

        But this isn’t about being uncomfortable with the mere presence of a disabled person. I think the issue here is that his behavior feels creepy to others, even if he didn’t mean it. A middle-aged man engaging in conversations with women and children – I can completely understand why a parent wouldn’t be comfortable, even knowing that Alex is neurodivergent. If he insisted on contact with me, an adult woman, I would feel the urge to remove myself from the situation. It’s the natural instinct to protect oneself that can’t be overridden easily.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          I agree, but the problem *isn’t* that a middle-aged man is engaging in conversations with women and children. A lot of men manage that just fine without making anyone uncomfortable. It is that the middle-aged man won’t leave them alone when they want to be left alone! Whether that makes the people he speaks with uncomfortable, bored, annoyed or creeped out, he is making most *paying attendee* he interacts with upset.

          Maybe his neurodivergence is making it hard for him to pick up on social cues, but I don’t think that’s all. The ND people I know care about other people’s comfort; the minute they find out they’ve crossed a boundary, they will back way off. In contrast, Alex seems to just change targets and repeat the same behavior with someone new. We also have at least one case where he was clearly told *multiple* times to stop interacting with the same woman and rather than backing off his behavior escalated to the point he was *banned from the community*.

        2. Hannah Lee*

          Exactly!

          If someone is interacting with me in a way that feels creepy to me, I would, as you say, feel the urge to remove myself from the situation. And that would be fine, I’d be perfectly within my rights to do so.

          (heck, you’d be within your rights to excuse yourself and expect the interaction to end there even if there was no creepiness involved)

      8. Mostly Managing*

        You cannot ban people for being disabled.
        You can ban them for behaving inappropriately and creeping out little girls (or anyone else).

        So for example, you cannot ban someone from attending because they use a wheelchair. You are well within your rights to ban them if they use the wheelchair to intentionally and repeatedly bump into other people and knock them over.

        As a parent with three ND kids, social skills can be taught and learned. It is not kind to Alex, nor to anyone else attending, to allow him to behave in a way that is not suitable for the event.

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Perfect analogy.

          Alex would not be banned for his disability but how he uses his disability to harm others.

          Now its possible no one has bluntly told him this behavior is not acceptable. It seems they babysat him rather than have the hard conversation. Time for the hard conversation and if the behavior continues, you have to ban him.

          Ask Joyce what she wants to do. She may be fine with him in her session or she may say do not let him near my session. Don’t make the decision for her.

      9. Ms. Eleanous*

        You can, however, ban people for their behavior.

        If some creep starts intentionally running into people in his power wheelchair, his disability is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

        For that matter, alcoholism and addictions are considered illnesses, but drunks are kicked out – for good reason- all the time.

        *see screaming baby comment.

        1. Immaterial*

          This would be the reason to ban him from the event.
          It also makes me think that he will not respond well to just clearly setting expectations. If you don’t want to tell him not to attend, you need to make a code of conduct and be prepared to enforce it.

          1. Rebecca*

            I don’t understand how “he stalked one of the presenters” isn’t an immediate ban. It doesn’t matter if he’s disabled or the emperor of earth. He shouldn’t be allowed to attend if he stalked someone that will be there.

            1. MassMatt*

              LW and other organizers are undoubtedly trying to be kind and giving him the benefit of the doubt due to his being ND, and not wanting to have the difficult conversation with him. That this is a fandom convention setting which tries to welcome everyone adds to this desire not to exclude him.

              But we have many ND people here, and parents of ND children, saying this is not how to treat ND people. It doesn’t wind up being kind to the ND person, and certainly not to the people being bothered.

            2. Cthulhu’s Librarian*

              Honest answer? Because the vast majority of fan events are run by people who are just super enthusiastic about getting their favorite creators to come and be present anywhere near them. Functionally, the organizers are star struck during the entirety of the time they’re organizing the event, and all they can think about is “OMG, Presenter X is here!” Alex is a pain, but he isn’t their focus (until they realize they’re spending a massive amount of time trying to work around him, and realize he actually kind of is… and then a lot of them will just stop showing up).

              Fan events have to reach a certain level of being a business, before the organizers tend to get serious about things like codes of conduct, enforcement, and recognizing that it actually doesn’t matter whether attendee X wants to be here, if Attendees A-J won’t come if they are present in the space. It’s the difference between a mature convention or an immature one – immature conventions are relying on the passion of the volunteers and organizers, and frankly, most folks aren’t passionate about writing codes, documenting incidents, and enforcing bans on individuals. Once you reach the point where a convention starts to be treated as a business, where someone is counting on it being successful, and someone is getting paid to do these things, they start to show up and improve the space.

            3. Catherine*

              As someone who quit working fandom conventions, it’s really amazing how hard a con com can commit to the stance that behavior outside the official space shouldn’t count against someone in the context of event attendance.

      11. Blue*

        Except Joyce was clear with him, and his response was to harass and stalk her. His behaviour towards Joyce alone should’ve made it clear that this is not an issue of unclear communication, but Alex placing his emotions and desires above other people’s needs.

        I’m saying this as an autistic woman myself, BTW. There is a small but significant amount of autistic people who use autism as an excuse to be creeps, and Alex’s behaviour towards Joyce strongly makes me suspect he might be one of them.

        1. Mom2ASD*

          I think the question re Joyce is – did he stop when the social rules were make clear and explicit to him?

          If he was told that he had offended Joyce and that she wasn’t comfortable with him speaking with her, he may very well have been horrified and tried to fix his mistake by making another one – ie. sending her items as an apology. I can see the logic – “I talked to much to Joyce and she was uncomfortable. I will send her a gift so she knows I didn’t mean to do that.”

          Clear and explicit rules are really important for someone who doesn’t pick up on the unspoken rules and who has a limited ability to extrapolate in social situations. Nature abhors a vacuum – if you don’t tell someone with these challenges what TO DO, they will come up with a solution that may make the issue worse.

          Case in point – my son, (ASD, aged 7), got in trouble for kissing girls at school. We were shocked, for several reasons – one was the behaviour, another was because he had never exhibited any interest in another human being like that. When asked, he said “But I wanted to jump in the leaves!!” The teacher and us parents were mystified – what on earth did that have to do with kissing girls?!?? Turns out, the girls wouldn’t let him jump in the leaf piles, and he kissed them to make them run away so he could jump in the leaves in peace. Mission accomplished, as far as he was concerned. Instruction was given that one does not kiss people to make them run away.

          After that, we read a book on manners with him – lots of misconceptions were cleared up with that.

          1. Jennifer Strange*

            I think the question re Joyce is – did he stop when the social rules were make clear and explicit to him?

            Per the letter: “Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to.

            Yes, she made her boundaries clear and explicit.

          2. Tree*

            There’s a very big difference between a seven year old and a full grown man. We need to stop infantilizing ND men. I am ND myself and see this far too often, and it’s almost always men who get this benefit of the doubt.

          3. Nesprin*

            The responsibility of a community organizer to an adult man within that community is not the same as a parent to a child.

            Importantly, the responsibility of the community organizer is to the community as a whole, as much to Joyce as to Alex. While giving clear, explicit instructions to Alex should be considered a good thing, protecting the women in this group has to be top priority.

          4. Nancy*

            Alex is an adult and LW is not his parent.

            Joyce told him to stop and he continued. Women are really tired of being told that they must not have been clear enough when men refuse to stop after being told to do so.

      12. Olive*

        He didn’t stop contacting Joyce when she told him not to, and then he mailed things to her personal address. That is actually something very wrong. She deserves to be able to speak without her harasser being present.

      13. Nonanon*

        You cannot ban people for being disabled. You CAN ban people for not following clearly laid out con rules.

        If someone with a wheelchair was ramming into a fellow attendee, would you still allow this behavior because they were in a wheelchair? No, you would tell them to stop, and then discuss banning them if they continued to do that. Maybe it’s accidental, they just got their new wheelchair and are having difficulties with the learning curve and it’ll never happen again, maybe they’re just an a-hole.

        Alex could be anywhere from “otherwise cool dude who just needs someone to be explicit with him about the rules” to “using his disability as rationale to be creepy;” if the con hasn’t tried firmer boundaries, that’s the better starting point than a straight ban.

      14. Jennifer Strange*

        You cannot ban people for being disabled, just because others are uncomfortable with the presence of a disabled person.

        Good thing that’s not what’s happening here.

        1. CowWhisperer*

          Yup.

          People sporadically try to do stupidly dumb things that disenfranchise people with disabilities from absolute lack of thinking.

          This ain’t it.

          If Alex can attend multi-site conferences, he can follow the rule “Don’t begin conversations with minors.”. He can follow the rule “When someone tells you stop, stop the interaction. Do not find the address and send them things.”

          I work with and hobby with a lot of ND kids and adults. Yes, NT’s need to use their words instead of relying on non-verbals – but ND people are excellent at following clearly stated interpersonal rules. A ND friend of mine launched into a detailed diet discussion when I brought a salad. I told him I don’t like having discussions of diet at work. He returned to our other topics of conversation. He didn’t find my address and send me things.

          1. Maggie*

            He can attend multi day conferences AND have a high powered career as LW mentions. Something tells me he can control not cornering women at work…

        1. CityMouse*

          This is so frustrating! Parents are struggling to get him to leave their daughters alone. In no way is that acceptable.

      16. Artemesia*

        The guy is creeping on women and already stalked one who is on the program this year. He creeps on little girls. I don’t care how neurodivergent he is, he needs to stop this behavior and the managers of the event need to make that happen. The first step is to give him ‘rules’ about fastening on people and approaching kids. If that does it, great. If it doesn’t, escalate consequences including banning him.

        1. Tree*

          Question for LW1 – does he strike up conversations and pester little boys or just little girls? Just women or men too? the way it’s described in the letter it sure sounds like he’s making choices about when to follow social norms rather than not understanding them. if that’s the case, rules aren’t going to help.

          Hopefully, for the women and girls attending, it will help.

          1. Jules the 3rd*

            Per the letter there are few boys or men in this fandom. Sometimes Alex is the only male in the room. So they probably don’t know if it’s gender-specific.

            Doesn’t really matter though. There’s other data points to use to see if he’s making deliberate choices or not understanding – assessing his reaction to the new boundaries, for example. If he pushes back on whatever boundaries the Con crew sets, then he’s making choices.

      17. Lisa*

        You can’t/shouldn’t ban someone just for being disabled, but you can ban someone for conduct regardless of whether it is related to the disability.

      18. Nodramalama*

        Banning someone because they have made multiple people uncomfortable and felt unsafe is not banning someone because of a disability.

      19. Irish Teacher.*

        I think he is doing something wrong or at least he did something wrong by continuing to contact Joyce after she asked him to stop.

        And I don’t think the people here are uncomfortable with the presence of a neurodivergent person; the LW mentions that there are other neurodivergent people present. It sounds more like they are uncomfortable with an adult continuing to talk to children after he has been told people are uncomfortable with it.

        Coincidentally, a colleague of mine told a rather similar story to this only yesterday about a neurodivergent neighbour of hers who was talking to all the local kids and some parents becoming uncomfortable. But the difference is that once this man realised some parents were uncomfortable, he went to her and asked if she and her daughter and son-in-law would prefer he stop talking to her grandchildren.

        I know some neurotypical people would have a more difficult time picking up on this, but it sounds like Alex has been explicitly told. Neurodivergent people can have more difficulty understanding when somebody doesn’t want to talk to them or what interactions are inappropriate, but once they are told, they are perfectly capable of understanding.

        If Alex can hold down a high-level career, then he should be capable of hearing “some parents don’t like strangers starting up conversations with their kids” and either asking for clarification (“are there specific things I should stop doing?”) or avoiding starting conversations with kids completely. Yes, being neurodivergent may make it more difficult for him to determine stuff like how long is too long or which parents or kids seem uncomfortable, but he should be able to work something out like, “I’m not sure which interactions make parents uneasy, so I will keep conversations with kids to a minimum/ wait until a parent introduces me to their kids.”

        1. Lenora Rose*

          I would argue that I DO know of neurodivergent people who can’t hold those rules in their head (“I shouldn’t talk to little kids without their parent there… but that’s Kiera, I know her, she was nice the last time we met…” and off they go, the rule right out of their thoughts, even though Kiera’s mom is one of the people who is concerned) but if someone is that disabled, not only is it obvious, but they **need accompaniment**, and not assigned by the event.

          1. Irish Teacher.*

            And given that Alex has a high-level job…well, it’s not impossible that he manages that while unable to hold social rules in his head, but it does mean the odds that that is the case for him are less likely. Most jobs require some grasp of social rules, especially those at higher level.

          2. Orv*

            My experience is people like that will take whatever rules you set, and analyze them for loopholes in order to continue their behavior. I had one ND person in my life that I had to go no-contact with because he just kept finding new creative ways to stalk me and my wife, and every time he’d act innocent because we hadn’t told him not to do that ONE SPECIFIC THING and so how could he have known we’d object?

            1. Jules the 3rd*

              Much sympathy to you – that person was a jerk. From lots of experience with this sort of thing: if you set a boundary and someone refuses to follow it, that person is making deliberate choices. They are not innocently clueless. I go to no-contact after the first push-back / rules lawyering / “it was just a joke”.

              Screwing up isn’t always a relationship ender. Justifying the screw up so that you can continue to screw up is.

      20. Jules the 3rd*

        “Don’t talk to children you don’t know without explicit parental permission” is not actually a ‘subtle social cue’. This is a standard social rule. He is doing something wrong by breaking that one, as well as by stalking Joyce.

        If someone continually violates the social contract like this, don’t make individual attendees deal with him. Someone in authority needs to do that.

        Alison’s right with the simple rules, no ‘unless X or Y’, and suggest he brings a friend of his own to help him keep to them.

      21. Trout 'Waver*

        He stalked at least one person he was told to stop talking to. Maybe that’s why children’s parents feel like they can’t speak out.

      22. CommanderBanana*

        ^^ No. Sorry, this is not true.

        I have been an event planner for 15ish years. This is a serious, ongoing problem at conferences and is one reason that a lot of organizations have started adopting attendee codes of conduct and establishing policies for this sort of behavior. (And those that aren’t – you should be.) There absolutely needs to be a no-tolerance policy for harassment, stalking, and assault at events.

        Alex has harassed and stalked at least one person. His behavior is the textbook example of harassment and stalking. Even if that was the only incident, it would be enough to have that attendee on my radar and be grounds for banning from that event.

        His behavior has been egregious enough that multiple attendees have complained about it, in writing, to the conference organizers. The conference organizers now have a responsibility to deal with this.

        Tell someone to stop contacting you, to stop talking to you, to stop calling you, to stop texting you, and to stop mailing you stuff is not a “subtle social cue.”

      23. DameB*

        The letter says that he continued contacting Joyce after she told him not to. Repeatedly.

        That isn’t a subtle social cue — that’s just ignoring a woman’s consent and that is, in fact, doing something wrong.

      24. Colonel Gateway*

        Oh come on, nobody is suggesting banning Alex for being disabled. People are suggesting banning Alex because of his behavior, which is completely warranted.

      25. Lightbourne Elite*

        “If you step on my foot, you need to get off my foot.

        If you step on my foot without meaning to, you need to get off my foot.

        If you step on my foot without realizing it, you need to get off my foot.

        If everyone in your culture steps on feet, your culture is horrible, and you need to get off my foot.

        If you have foot-stepping disease, and it makes you unaware you’re stepping on feet, you need to get off my foot. If an event has rules designed to keep people from stepping on feet, you need to follow them. If you think that even with the rules, you won’t be able to avoid stepping on people’s feet, absent yourself from the event until you work something out.”

        Stolen from way back during ElevatorGate. Apparently we still have not learned this.

      26. jasmine*

        When multiple women in multiple contexts feel uncomfortable around a guy, I’m pretty suspect that it’s not an unconscious bias playing out but just our standard alarm bells of “this guy’s creepy and I know it, but he hasn’t technically done anything wrong yet” only to be proved later that he is, indeed, creepy.

      27. Lenora Rose*

        It’s a balancing act. I give a lot more grace to someone who is obviously disabled who talks to everyone and doesn’t seem to understand they might come across oddly – but there are clear limits past which, regardless of disability, that person either needs to admit they require an aide (arranged on their side, not by the event) to navigate events, or needs to be barred entry. It’s hard to tell from this letter which side Alex is on, but the number of concerns make it sound like he *at least* needs to be given firm rules by the event, with crystal clear consequences, if given another chance.

      28. CommanderBanana*

        Also, maybe this is an incredibly spicy take, but I personally don’t think that I should be put in a position where I have to get in a grown man’s face and tell him DO NOT TALK TO MY CHILD at an event that is attended by mostly women and girls.

        In fact, and again I know this is SUCH a HOT TAKE, maybe an event that is attended by almost entirely women and girls should be a safe space for women and girls!

        Shocking concept, I know.

        1. Admin Lackey*

          I’ve appreciated your spice in the comments today because the disregard for the women and girls who have been made to feel uncomfortable is driving me up the wall.

          Have the women tried being perfect? Have they tried saying the exact right thing? Have the tried explaining exactly how to be a person? Have they tried badges? have they have they have they….

          Meanwhile Alex gets to do whatever he wants, forever

          1. CommanderBanana*

            Seriously. And it’s weird, because I myself am a neurodivergent woman, and yet I don’t recall anyone, ever, twisting themselves into pretzels to ensure my continued comfort and freedom to do whatever tf I want whenever I want to.

            It is truly bananas, in the year of Our Lord Jesus Jones 2024, that the solution to an adult man making girls and their mothers uncomfortable at an event that is almost exclusively attended by said girls and their mothers and could in fact be said to be for girls and their mothers, an adult man who has harassed and stalked someone, is not to ban said man from this event but to make sure that his precious feelings do not ever get bruised and that everyone around him, forever and ever amen, contort themselves into knots to make sure he can continue his behavior completely unruffled.

            Honestly, LW, at this point maybe your committee deserves having all of your attendees quit en masse to establish their own event where the ticket doesn’t include being cornered by That One (No, Seriously Folks, It’s Just One!) Guy with a side order of potential stalking if he gets your home address.

          2. CommanderBanana*

            Thank you. It is not surprising, but it is once again disappointing, to see the But What If That One Guy Is All These Other Things And Have You Tried Just Putting Up With It? You’re MEAN! brigade ride in.

        2. PJ Biff*

          If you don’t want adults to talk to your children about a shared interest, don’t take your children to social events attended by adults and children who share an interest.

          Someone talking to your kid isn’t unsafe. This particular person has a high likelihood of being unsafe because he already violated stated boundaries with Joyce.

          1. Moira's Rose's Garden*

            Here is the thing: You are ignoring hella context specific to this situation, and more generally context about how mom’s are socialized and expected to conduct themselves.

            Dangerous randos don’t come with convenient markers & signs. Predators (esp. those who prey on kids) specifically seek out areas where they’ll have easy access to lots of potential victims.

            I get to take my kiddos to public fan events that aren’t restricted to adults, fullstop. But you’re (general you) Schrodinger’s Predator if you’re a rando who comes out of the blue and starts a full conversation with a minor in my care. If you have questions about whether something is ok ASK THE DAMNED PARENT/GUARDIAN/ADULT THEN ACT ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY SAY.

      29. Tree*

        This reminds me of the racism of low expectations.

        I am neurodivergent. I don’t stalk people. I don’t make children and their parents uncomfortable. I would be able to attend an event like this because they aren’t banning ND people, they’d be banning harmful behaviour.

        Being ND isn’t a free pass to be creepy. When people act like it is, it is highly insulting. Please don’t treat me like I can’t help but to harm others.

      30. RagingADHD*

        Alex is a grown man with a high level career. He would not be employable if he were so incapable of reading social cues that he routinely followed strangers around and refused to leave them alone. He knows that behavior is not acceptable everywhere, and is capable of controlling himself.

        Going from one young girl to the next and making them uncomfortable by refusing to leave when they are signalling in all the polite ways they know that they want you to stop, is in fact doing something wrong.

        The LW said these are girls – children or teens. They are not responsible for managing an adult man’s behavior. He is responsible for managing it himself.

        Refusing to leave women alone when they are actively trying to end a conversation is doing something wrong. They are not responsible for ensuring that they communicate in some precisely-correct way to meet whatever formula you deem as fair.

        The LW is not even contemplating an immediate ban, but a very direct conversation about conduct.

        If Alex does not comply with the rules after being told, then he is clearly doing something wrong and it would be even more unequivocally appropriate to ban him.

      31. Katherine*

        You should read something thoroughly before you respond, especially if your instinct is to respond in a judgmental, victim-blaming manner. The letter clearly states that people DID clearly – not subtly- tell him they wanted to end the conversation. It also clearly states that he continued to contact someone repeatedly after being asked not to.

      32. Reluctant Mezzo*

        He’s creeping on them. How much of that are you willing to put up with? Or are you in an exempt category or an Alex yourself?

    3. Hyaline*

      Except he’s making people uncomfortable because he has a disability. If he made people uncomfortable because he used a wheelchair or had an accent we’d all agree he can’t be barred solely because of the way people react to him. LW is pretty clear he’s not doing anything creepy or threatening. If he is that’s different but honestly there’s a fine line between annoyed and uncomfortable and as long as he’s frustrating but not a creep it’s not right to ban him.

      1. Sonia*

        Honestly, I completely understand why someone would be creeped out by Alex’ behavior. It’s one of those situations where, technically, a person didn’t do anything wrong, but given the context (adult man talking to children and women, but not to adult males, as I understand from the letter), it will feel creepy to many people and not everyone is comfortable taking a risk, especially when children are involved. It’s not the same as using a wheelchair or having an accent.

        1. LW 1*

          To add some context, he’s often the only man in attendance. Occasionally there will be a dad or partner around for the weekend, but they’re not generally fans of the IP and usually go do their own things.

          1. CommanderBanana*

            I’m sure that him being the only man attending is just a huge coincidence, and not because he knows it’s a place he can get away with behavior like stalking speakers and making attendees uncomfortable.

            (that was sarcasm)

            1. Peony*

              That sounds like a leap. There are absolutely fandoms/interests where the gender of participants is heavily skewed in one direction, and it sounds like—even if Alex is violating people’s boundaries—he is doing so by talking about that interest to a degree that exhausts people, not by using that interest as an excuse to sexually harass them, for example.

              Again, not saying he should be allowed to continue to make people uncomfortable, but I don’t know if there’s anything to be gained by ascribing nefarious motivations not in evidence.

              1. Thegs*

                I swear to god sometimes it feels like my brother and I are the only two AMAB people in the Warrior Cats fandom.

        2. DameB*

          I wanna reiterate that he continued contacting Joyce after she repeatedly told him not to. That is in fact, one of those situations where he did something VERY WRONG. What’s more, Joyce is going to be there.

      2. CityMouse*

        I’ve been a volunteer at a camp for kids with autism, severely disabled kids. And it’s always very close the volunteers do not have to put up with harassment or abuse. Even in a situation where you know what you’re getting into and get training, the answer isn’t just “put up with it”.

        Reasonable accommodations are never at the expense of someone else’s safety. Repeatedly making girls uncomfortable and unwanted contact with Joyce, those are unacceptable behaviors and are not things you tolerate based on disability.

      3. Jennifer Strange*

        People aren’t uncomfortable because he has a disability, they are uncomfortable because he is behaving in a creepy manner even after being asked to stop (and mostly, it sounds like, to children!) To go with your wheelchair analogy, if someone used a wheelchair and was consistently running people over presumably you wouldn’t think the organizers were wrong to bar that person from returning?

      5. Analyst*

        He literally stalked a woman who is a speaker at this conference. That is a far step beyond annoying. Also…making people uncomfortable with your behavior is in fact a problem when it involves his interacting with them (ie, people aren’t uncomfortable that he’s say stimming, they’re upset in how he is persistently approaching them and their children) And he’s at least once persisted after being told to stop.

      6. Learn ALL the things*

        If a wheelchair user was continually being careless and running over people’s feet, event organizers would be within their rights to address it, because it wouldn’t be about the mere presence of a wheelchair, it would be about the wheelchair user not using the chair appropriately. That’s the situation OP has with Alex. It doesn’t sound like anyone is uncomfortable at the mere existence of his disability, the discomfort springs from his behavior, and that needs to be addressed.

        He has previously stalked one of the event’s presenters. At minimum, he needs to be told that he cannot attend her presentation and he is not to speak to her, at all, for any reason. And if he’s unable to pick up the social cues that indicate someone else wants to be done with the conversation, he needs to be given a time limit like the one Alison suggested.

      7. Nodramalama*

        No, people are assuming that he genuinely does not understand he is making people uncomfortable because he has a disability, and that that means the behaviour is something everyone has to put up with.

        1. He might understand what he’s doing and he isn’t changing his behaviour because as well as being neurodivergent he is also a creep. And 2. Neurodivergence can explain behaviour but that does not make it acceptable. The behaviour towards Joyce borders on stalking. She is not obliged to put up with that because of what might be causing it. It is not acceptable full stop.

      8. Joana*

        Fandoms have a higher instance of minority groups like LGBT and neurodivergence. There is a very high chance that some of the moms and/or their kids are also neurodivergent. I don’t know about you, but if I was a mom with a neurodivergent daughter, who was working hard to make sure she acts appropriately, removing her from public if she’s having a meltdown etc, I’d be pretty miffed to then see a grown adult being excused for stalking others, making them uncomfortable etc because “Well that’s just how he is.”

      9. Rex Libris*

        He’s making people uncomfortable because he won’t leave them alone. People don’t use wheelchairs or accents *at* other people. He’s engaging people who do not want to be engaged, in ways that make them uncomfortable. It’s not the same situation.

      11. nodramalama*

        As someone else said, if someone with a wheelchair used that wheelchair to ram into people, you could ban them. LW might say he’s not threatening, but they have also recieved MULTIPLE complaints about his behaviour, and his behaviour towards joyce is at best unacceptable and at worst stalking.

        At that point, it doesn’t really matter what the underlying reason it. People are not obliged to put up with feeling uncomfortable and possibly unsafe.

      12. CommanderBanana*

        LW is pretty clear he’s not doing anything creepy or threatening.

        O rly.

        He was told to stop contacting a speaker. He kept calling and texting them. Then started mailing stuff to their house.

        In what universe is that not creepy or threatening?

        1. Hyaline*

          No, I didn’t read that as “threatening” as the LW didn’t describe threats. “Creepy” is up for grabs–clearly Joyce felt it was inappropriate and asked for it to stop, and it should have, and the fact that he didn’t the first time isn’t great. However–that’s not the only piece of info we have. Do we take under consideration at all that “Alex has attended other, virtual events since then and has behaved appropriately and not interacted with Joyce”? which suggests that he understood that he mistepped and applied the correction, therefore, could do so again with a firm set of boundaries?

          1. CommanderBanana*

            I said what I said.

            Ultimately, the amount of effort going into this one attendee is not sustainable. It is not fair to expect every other attendee to know that they have to say the One Perfect String of Words to get this person to leave them alone.

            It is not fair to tell other attendees that the price of admission might be having to deal with Alex’s behavior.

            It is not fair to the staff or the volunteers to do something like have to assign this one attendee a permanent escort at this event to prevent him from doing stuff like this in the future.

            It is not fair for the planning committee to have to spend this much time and energy on preventing one attendee from behaving this way.

          2. Jennifer Strange*

            Sending things to someone’s home after they have repeatedly told you to stop contacting them AND after they forced a break in contact is threatening. It doesn’t matter if there was no threat in what was sent, the action is still threatening.

            Alex has attended other, virtual events since then and has behaved appropriately and not interacted with Joyce”? which suggests that he understood that he mistepped and applied the correction, therefore, could do so again with a firm set of boundaries?

            He didn’t understand he misstepped nor did he apply the correction when he was literally removed from a group for continuing contact with someone who asked him multiple times to stop (both of which are a firm set of boundaries on their own) so why should we assume he has now just because he didn’t interact with her at virtual events (events which by their nature make it harder to corner someone)?

          3. Nodramalama*

            I’m sorry but it is just not reasonable to say, when someone tells someone “stop contacting this person” they have to clarify “stop talking, texting, videoing, writing letters, sending things in tbe mail, seeing them in person” just in case they missed one example and that means it’s ok for them to do that one thing.

            What stopped his behaviour was being banned.

          4. Irish Teacher.*

            Somebody can be threatening without making threats. I don’t know if this is true of Alex or not but it is definitely true in general. If somebody stands right up against me at the ATM and appears to be looking over my shoulder as I type in my PIN, I am likely to feel threatened though they have made no threats. There are all kinds of ways somebody can be threatening without making threats.

          5. jasmine*

            Most women would find a man sending things to their personal address after telling him to stop contacting her threatening. It’s a fairly common and normal reaction, and I feel that you’re really downplaying how bad it is that he continued his behavior after being asked to stop.

            It’s great that the LW didn’t read it as threatening. That doesn’t mean Joyce didn’t feel that way.

            If he stopped after Joyce said no, that would be an indication that he understood he mistepped and applied the correction. The fact that he has behaved appropriately since being banned from a group suggests that he has realized doing otherwise would have negative consequences for him.

            The only part where I’m a little ?? is that it’s a little unclear to me exactly who told him what when about contacting Joyce. Was there a clear “stop” communicated? I think so based on the letter, but I’m a little confused on exactly what was said

          6. Jules the 3rd*

            No, it means that the consequences for his repeated violation of boundaries finally got severe enough for Alex to take the boundaries seriously. Which strongly implies he is able to remember the boundaries if the consequences matter enough *to him*.

            As an adult human, it is Alex’s responsibility to manage himself and the disadvantages of his disability, and he has a lot of options. He could bring a friend. He could decide that with each person, he will only touch on one topic (ie, if this is My Little Pony, he would only talk about one pony with each person). He could approach adults, not children.

            But honestly, given that he stalked a presenter, he should be banned or only virtual. Joyce’s comfort and safety are more important than Alex’s interest.

      13. House On The Rock*

        He sent things to a person’s home after she told him to stop contacting her and multiple parents have complained about how he interacts with their children. Those definitely feel creepy and threatening. How on earth is the analogous to “having an accent”?

      14. Orv*

        I’d call stalking a presenter creepy and threatening.

        Also, as someone noted above, it would be wrong to ban someone for having a wheelchair. It would be acceptable to ban someone if they were using their wheelchair to bruise people’s shins.

    4. NYWeasel*

      Since it sounds like Alex hasn’t been given a direct message about his behavior, I think that’s the immediate next step, but beyond that I agree with that being the logical result.

      For OP, first, you mention this is a paid event. Do you have anyone in charge of security? I’m on the planning committee for a paid annual con, and I know that if I get word of poor behavior from an attendee, I can let Jonesy know, and Jonesy will observe the attendee and take any direct conversations that may be needed. More importantly, Jonesy isn’t a member of the community that goes to the event, so isn’t invested in any of the behind-the-scenes politics. It really helps with the awkward conversations because the attendee can’t connect it back to previous online disputes, like “you’re only doing this bc you don’t like that I supported MsRainbowPawz84 when she was criticizing you!” It also helps that Jonesy is an actual bouncer, so understands how to deal with irrational people. Some people think that having an actual security person is overkill, but when you’ve collected $$, the expectations of your audience go waaaay up.

      Secondly, I’ve actually seen a company that “fires” guests that ruin the atmosphere they are trying to create. They would only use that option in extreme cases, but they started by writing a post about the idea online. They made it clear that if they felt they wouldn’t be delivering the experience a customer expected and if they couldn’t find a way to resolve the concerns for both parties, this would be the next step. I was at two different events where attendees were actually fired, once for trying to enter the event completely trashed and disruptive, and the other was more of an Alex situation in which a female guest made everyone uncomfortable over a few events and needed constant supervision & support from the event staff. In both cases they pulled the individual aside and said “You are looking for a different environment than what we’re creating at this event, and we will never be able to deliver to those expectations. We are refunding you your money, and suggest you look elsewhere to suit your needs.” Anyone fired was banned from future events as well.

    5. Anon in Canada*

      I agree. Alex’s behavior 100% justifies banning him, now.

      An adult man talking to children (especially girls) that he doesn’t know in a public place is not acceptable, ND or not. And there have been complaints. Children’s comfort in such a venue needs to trump the desire to not offend one adult man.

      If he was only talking to other adults and making them uncomfortable, I may say he deserves a final warning and honest conversation, but we’re talking about kids here – anyone should know this is inappropriate.

      1. Dahlia*

        “An adult man talking to children (especially girls) that he doesn’t know in a public place is not acceptable”

        That’s a ridiculous sentence. I had a toddler scream “HELLO” at me in the grocery store today. If I was a man, should I have not have said “hi” back?

        The problem is they’re uncomfortable, not that they’re being spoken to by a man in public.

        1. PJ Biff*

          No, you see, children are the property of their parents, not their own autonomous beings, and other adults talking to them is inherently bad.

        2. Anon in Canada*

          Saying “hi” back to a toddler who said hi to you is absolutely not the same as trying to have full conversations with older children – when the children haven’t addressed you first.

          LW commented somewhere else that the attendance at those events is almost all female (plus a few dads of girls who are there for the event). This one middle-aged man is going there by himself and trying to talk to those girls. “Yuck” is the best description of the situation.

          1. Dahlia*

            So the thing that was said, is not actually what was meant. When someone explicitly said “adult men should never talk to children in public ever” that’s somehow not what they meant?

            Alex is being inappropriate because he’s crossing boundaries and not taking no for an answer, not because he’s talking to a kid about My Littlest Barbie at a My Littlest Barbie convention.

            1. Anon in Canada*

              I think that an adult man “talking to a kid about My Littlest Barbie at a My Littlest Barbie convention”, when he does not know the kid or the accompanying parent, is inherently inappropriate. Not taking no for an answer is making things worse, but I don’t see any situation in which these actions (towards strangers) could be appropriate to start with.

              For an adult man to go to such a convention by himself is “ick”.

        3. Elitist Semicolon*

          I agree with your last sentence but your example isn’t a direct comparison. A toddler saying hi to you isn’t the same as you walking up to a young girl you don’t know and asking her whether she likes Frozen. Directionality and who instigates the conversation makes a huge difference in whether an interaction is appropriate.

    6. HonorBox*

      I agree. While I can appreciate that the committee wants to be inclusive, I think they also have a right and responsibility to ensure that other attendees feel comfortable attending. Have the conversation with Alex and monitor how he responds and behaves going forward. If he can’t (or won’t) make a change, I think the committee has a responsibility to refuse future participation.

    7. e271828*

      The event and group are, I suspect, already at the point where Alex is driving away would-be attendees.

      Whose comfort matters more, Alex’s or everyone else’s?

      1. refl*

        My old employer gave everyone one of those with the company name to improve moral. I often wonder what that meeting looked like

        Bill: “Moral is pretty low, we need to do something”
        Bob: “oh, you will finally address the horrible governance issues in the company and the crushing work live balance?”
        Bill: “What? No! Krazy Straw!!!!”

        For some reason, everyone in our department “lost” their straw in the very visible community kitchen bin …

      1. Nodramalama*

        Maybe he genuinely doesn’t know and will be embarrassed, but I would point out that he has already been banned from the social media groups because he kept talking and texting someone AFTER he was told to stop

      2. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

        I simultaneously want to be in a Zoom call where I am the person with the Krazy Straw and/or get to witness someone having the Krazy Straw. I love the idea of a Krazy Straw. It’s such a benign, low stakes thing- I would be amused, but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone unless it’s say, a Zoom memorial or Zoom call to discuss genocide. But a Zoom call about widgets? Definitely a Krazy Straw time.

        1. sparkle emoji*

          I’d love to do a little passive aggressive slurp on the Krazy Straw Zoom. That’s the dream.

        2. Wendy Darling*

          I have a coffee mug that says “fuck it” on the side in cursive. It’s surrounded by really cute flowers and is actually incredibly tasteful other than, you know, the fact that it says “fuck it” on the side.

          1. pagooey*

            I have a coffee mug that is engraved with the famous image of Johnny Cash flipping the bird. I don’t think I’ve ever sipped pointedly from it in a video meeting, but now I might regret not doing so at times when it was well deserved.

      4. Seven If You Count Bad John*

        I have never heard of these and imagined a straw with the company logo printed on. Then I Googled it and Oh, my. These are awesome!

    3. GammaGirl1908*

      I’ve passed by a meme saying something like “Occasionally blow on the wine in your mug so people on Zoom will think it’s hot coffee.”

      1. canuckian*

        During lockdown, there was a video, on facebook iirc, where they showed you a “life hack” for drinking on virtual calls. Take one of those teabags with a string, cut it off, tape the top of it on the inside of your mug, flip the rest of on the outside, so it looked like you were drinking tea. Fill your mug with your drink of choice and no one would be the wiser.

        1. I should really pick a name*

          Seems like overkill.

          If you’re already drinking from a mug, the default assumption is going to be coffee, not something illicit.

          Which seems consistent with most “life hacks”

    4. Worldwalker*

      I know, right?

      Amazon has an excellent assortment, by the way, including reusable stainless steel ones.

    5. Falling Diphthong*

      Friendly’s that used to be near us had color changing crazy straws. Imagine the fun on a Zoom call!

    6. Distracted Procrastinator*

      It would actually be acceptable at my company to drink with a Krazy Straw during virtual meetings (internal. might get a comment from the boss if I tried it during an external.)

    7. Pearl*

      My first thought upon seeing you could order custom Krazy Straws was picturing someone ordering one that said I Q U I T, lol.

    8. Trout 'Waver*

      100%. I would love it is someone had a ridiculous Krazy Straw on a business call. Executive material.

    9. Ophelia*

      my favorite play is to drink out of my Billionaire Tears mug, but I only do that when the context is right, lol.

    10. Learn ALL the things*

      Knowing my boss, I think she would legitimately love it if I showed up to our next video call drinking from a krazy straw.

    11. Ultimate Facepalm*

      Yep – I want one now. I lol’d at the thought of using one of these on my meeting calls.

  4. Daria grace*

    #1. Please speak to Alex and do whatever else is appropriate in your context to reign in behaviour that is making it uncomfortable for others. It’s a fairly safe assumption that there will be more people who didn’t feel comfortable speaking up about him than did so that you’ve had feedback from a bunch of people already likely means this is a big problem

    1. AcademiaNut*

      A key thing will be how he reacts to being given clear instructions. If you tell him to not approach children, and to limit conversations with people to short duration (< 5 minutes) and he complies, that's a good sign.

      If he doesn't comply, or he gets sneaky about it, or tries to rules lawyer his way around it, or just can't grasp what he's being told to do, he'll need to either be told to attend virtually, or have one of the organizing committee following him around to intervene. You definitely can't ask a paying attendee to do that duty.

      I tend to be rather cynical about situations like this, given how often "Oh, he's just awkward, he doesn't mean any harm" is used as a reason to let men be creepy towards women, driving the women out of events and organizations and even jobs.

      1. Jenesis*

        I’d be curious to know how Alex reacted to being removed from the social media group. It sounds like we already have an example of someone giving him clear communication (being told by Joyce to stop contacting her), and rather than respect her boundary, he doubled down (the “apology gifts”) even though he was already aware that it had made her upset.

        If Alex can demonstrate that he knows why his past behavior was unacceptable in general (and not just because he thinks Joyce is unusually oversensitive) and promises to not do it anymore, to anyone, then I would consider giving him a chance at events. But once you’re seriously considering a Volunteer Alex Minder to make sure he doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable, it should be a sign that his behavior has gotten past the point of reasonable to the point that you can justify not letting him attend at all.

      2. Azure Jane Lunatic*

        It might also be a kindness to tell him up front that if he does not comply with the instructions, what the mildest possible consequence would be, “up to and including” the maximum possible consequence.

        1. Purple Turtle*

          Your last sentence reminds me of an experience I had a while ago. A coworker behaved inappropriately and wouldn’t stop even after I told him several times. Then I spoke to my boss, who played down the situation, saying the coworker didn’t mean any harm. By the way, the guy seemed to be socially adept in all other interactions I observed. In fact, I would say he gave off the impression of being a clever, even calculated sort of person on several occasions. So I had a very hard time buying my boss’ excuse. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a guy to be clueless, I would just be very careful using this explanation because it’s used so often and almost instinctively by so many people in charge.

          1. AcademiaNut*

            Exactly. And in fan events and similar social spaces no-one ever seems to ask the question “How many people have not come back because they were made uncomfortable?”

            1. Jackalope*

              This is one of the big things I’d be worried about. LW, you say that Alex isn’t being creepy, only annoying. Accepting that as a hypothesis for a second, I know that if I had a specific fandom that I enjoyed and there was someone at the event that was so annoying in an ongoing way that would make it harder to report than him being creepy. So what I’d likely do is not say anything and just quietly stop coming. You don’t have a way to know how many attendees have chosen that as a response to Alex badgering them with his enthusiasm and not taking the hint to leave them alone, but I’m willing to bet it’s a non-zero number. Keep in mind that the cost of bending over backwards to accommodate Alex is losing some of your other attendees.

            2. Andy*

              This exactly! I hope the loss of a few dozen guests who know how to behave was worth keeping the guy that no one likes.

              Your event isn’t a democracy and doesn’t need justification for everything. Ban him! Why? “Because the organizers of the event wanted him to not be there.”

            3. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

              This is actually happening in science fiction fan settings. (Or at least, it was before the pandemic. The last one I help organize took place in early March of 2020 and I’ve been out of the loop for awhile now.) And it’s having an impact!

      3. Six Feldspar*

        This sentence also jumped out at me for similar reasons: “It’s worth noting that while he clearly has higher support needs in terms of interpersonal skills, he has low support needs in his high-level career.”

        EITHER Alex is using all his energy to be professional at work and believes that because the con isn’t a work event, he doesn’t have to be in professional mode there. A blunt conversation about behaviour as described above might be awkward in the moment but hopefully would improve the situation after. A lot of people stumble a bit in con situations like this where you don’t need to be professional per se but you’re not among friends either (cons are friendly places and you’re all there with a shared interest, but it’s still most likely a room of strangers).

        OR Alex knows this behaviour is inappropriate, can control it when he’s at work because there are tangible and almost immediate consequences, and doesn’t feel the need to control it at a con because it’s not a professional setting. So far the consequences haven’t been particularly harsh and it’s hard to tell the time frame. If that’s the case there’s probably going to be a lot of moaning and attempted rules lawyering.

        I think either way a blunt conversation is going to make the situation clearer.

        1. Nobby Nobbs*

          I’d posit another option: Alex assumes that since engaging in geeky activities by necessity and group cultural preference involves throwing out some standard behavioral norms, he gets to ignore all standard behavioral norms. He’s wrong, of course, and needs to be told firmly where the line is and removed from the event if he can’t abide by it.

        2. Constance Lloyd*

          Eh, this is pretty typical of some disabilities. Not speculating about Alex specifically, but I’ve worked closely with autistic adults in an advocacy setting and it’s very common for folks to excel in highly technical subjects and sincerely need stronger support or coaching when it comes to social cues. Alex excelling in his professional field does not mean he’s being willfully ignorant in social settings, it just means he has different support needs with different skills.

          Alex deserves very clear instructions and consequences for not following them. The other attendees deserve to see those consequences enforced if and as needed.

        3. CommanderBanana*

          Also – “It’s worth noting that while he clearly has higher support needs in terms of interpersonal skills, he has low support needs in his high-level career.”

          I don’t understand how this is germane at all to the LW. That’s like saying he should be allowed to continue stalking speakers because he doesn’t need a spotter when he does the uneven bars. So what?

          1. metadata minion*

            It indicates that most likely he can understand social norms in a work setting. Not a guarantee — “brilliant asshole” is a trope for a reason — but people who genuinely can’t understand social cues don’t tend to progress far in most professions unless they’re very privileged in other ways.

            1. CommanderBanana*

              Which, that’s cool and all. LW doesn’t work with Alex, and this isn’t his job. I don’t care if Alex is walking on water at his job, if I’m running and event and I have an Alex, I’m dealing with that Alex in the context of the event that I’m actually responsible for.

        4. Orv*

          Another possibility is he’s inappropriate at work, too, but they’re afraid of a disability lawsuit if they fire him. He may effectively have an “accommodation” of being allowed to be creepy to the other staff. It happens.

      4. Jules the 3rd*

        THIS. If he complies, then he’s sincerely clueless. If he tries to get around it, he’s a creep.

        With boundary-pushing behavior, the *reaction* to people setting or holding boundaries is what you really want to watch. His reaction to being told to stop stalking Joyce is already problematic, so any pushback at all should mean he’s no longer allowed to join.

      5. Bast*

        I understand the cynicism, because I’ve met many of the “fake shocked Pikachu face” types who know darn well they are making people uncomfortable and persist and then are “shocked” that they could have offended anyone. I’ve also met a few Alexs who genuinely do not understood why their behavior is inappropriate. I understand the frustration with it on both sides and the difficulty with managing the Alex around the other people. I worked with, and dated an Alex, who was ND. He took what people said VERY literally, and was hopeless when it came to things like personal space, body language, getting too personal, etc. We worked in a retail setting, and he got in trouble numerous times because what he thought was being friendly, many customers (particularly female ones) and some employees found creepy. And I got why. He flouted social norms at every opportunity, completely unaware that he was doing so. For example, if someone made small talk with him about the weather, he’d go into a long winded conversation about the history of weather norms for this month, compare it to last year, go into detail about historic lows and high, and talk AT you for a good 20 minutes when all the person would have said is something along the lines of, “Wow, pretty chilly today, isn’t it?” He’d also be standing way closer than is normal for where we live, which would cause others to back up. Something like body language angled away from him, a bored expression on the other person’s face, etc., would be clues for me that someone is done with the conversation, but they were things he genuinely did not understand, and did not pick up on. As a child, he had had issues with eye contact, and was constantly told he needed to make eye contact when he spoke to others. He took this advice to heart, and often appeared to be staring others down in conversation, which again, heightened the creep factor for some. This was something for him to work on – and he did, he really tried – but my point is that some people really are genuine in their confusion.; it isn’t all just people BSing in order to continue their crap behavior. I had to tell my Alex multiple times that he was coming on too intense/strong/needed to back off, etc., and each time he was upset and confused because he did not want to make others feel uncomfortable, but had a hard time understanding exactly how to read the room to make sure it didn’t happen again. You had to border on what would be considered rude/blunt in a normal conversation but was not taken as such by him. For example, backing away while he was talking would not help him understand that he was too close, or that you wanted to leave. You had to directly say, “Alex, you are in my personal bubble now, please give me some space” and he would apologize and do so. “Alex, I really have to leave right now, goodbye.”

      6. Observer*

        f he doesn’t comply, or he gets sneaky about it, or tries to rules lawyer his way around it, or just can’t grasp what he’s being told to do, he’ll need to either be told to attend virtually, or have one of the organizing committee following him around to intervene

        I’m going say that if that’s what happens, then he only gets to attend virtually. Even if the committee had the ability to do the buddy work, it would be a bad idea. Since they don’t have the capacity, it should not even be on the table.

    2. HonorBox*

      This is a great point. I’ve read research that shows something like for every complaint a business gets, there are 26 people who have had a similar experience.

    3. Observer*

      It’s a fairly safe assumption that there will be more people who didn’t feel comfortable speaking up about him than did so that you’ve had feedback from a bunch of people already likely means this is a big problem

      This. 100 times over. And if he does this again, you can be sure that instead of hearing from all of the people he made uncomfortable, people are going to either stop coming to the event or they are going to create a whisper network. And you can be sure that once *that* happens, it’s going to have the capacity to be weaponized against the event very easily.

  5. Filosofickle*

    Meeting beverages is one of the things I overthink. My colleagues typically drink (or appear to drink) water, tea, or coffee on camera in meetings — but they don’t drink anything often, which stands out to me because I’m always sipping something! It’s a stim for me. It also stands out that they never appear to drink soda. I don’t drink much, but when I do it feels taboo to show it on camera even in the most casual meeting. It’s “unhealthy” or unsophisticated, I guess? Coke is arguably better than a sugar bomb drink from Dutch Bros, but somehow it has a different cultural interpretation. (I also never see sugary drinks at my friends’ houses, for what it’s worth.)

    I have considered using straws more because when you start getting to the bottom of a bottle / mug, knocking it back creates some unattractive views onscreen. Straws let you keep your face at the right level.

    1. Archi-detect*

      I love that we have a camera off culture- it also makes feet on the desk and eye rolling at home acceptable as well as whatever I want to eat or drink (muted of course)

    2. Jay (no, the other one)*

      Sometimes the can of soda leads to interesting conversations! I drink Fresca and a few people on Zoom meetings have commented on it.

      1. Nonanon*

        I had an energy drink with an oddly shaped can (different from say, a normal soda can) and needed to use one of my partner’s custom koozies. “Custom” not only in shape, but he also used to paint them as well.

        Reader, the koozie I had grabbed had “probably not beer” on one side and “definitely caffeine” on the other. Guess which side I had facing the camera, in full view of my grandboss (who was gracious enough to not say anything if he had noticed).

      3. Jack Straw from Wichita*

        FRESCA!! It makes me feel nostalgic because we always had some in the house when I was a kid. I recently got my 22YO son hooked on it. :)

    3. Falling Diphthong*

      These optics were an actual thing addressed in one of Donna Andrews bird mysteries, and the solution was to pour the Diet Coke into a coffee mug.

      1. Electrolytes Coffee Mug*

        This was my solution when I was taking a medication that required I hydrate with electrolytes during the day – the bright red gatorade I prefer seemed childish. Or like I was nursing a hangover. But I didn’t want to switch to electrolyte powders in water. Coffee mug to the rescue!

      2. Ophelia*

        I have some dark blue glasses that are GREAT for this. Water? Kombucha? Root beer? No one will ever know!

        1. JustaTech*

          The shape of the glass makes a difference too. Dark-colored transparent liquid in a pint glass? Must be cola!
          It was not, it was red wine, and a sign that that particular friend needed to address his relationship with alcohol. (This was at a social-ish event, not work.)

    5. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      It really is a different thing.

      In court, I never drink. Mostly because it involves either bringing a water bottle or using the pitchers and cups in the courtroom which means having to find somewhere to throw the cup away so you don’t leave it for courtroom staff to clean up (that would be rude).

      Zoom court, even though it is still court and you should behave accordingly? I am there sipping away at my iced tea in my big ol’ Mission BBQ plastic cup with colorful straw. Not one judge has commented.

    6. Jeanine*

      Good lord I would never worry about what I’m drinking in a video meeting. If I’m drinking my coffee in a ouija mug then that is what you’re going to see! Whatever I drink and whatever I drink it in is my business.

    7. Pinto*

      I’m always drinking also. I also generally have both tea and water at my desk along with Diet Coke. But literally before this thread, I’ve never once given any thought to the optics. And still likely won’t.

    8. le sigh*

      I’m mostly a coffee/water person, and I’m not a big soda drinker in general, but I tend to avoid it for Zoom calls bc it will make me burp.

    9. LL*

      My stance has been if it’s something people would drink in the office, it’s perfectly fine to drink on Zoom. This includes any and all sodas, kombucha, tea, coffee, frozen coffee drinks with straws, plain water, sparkling water, seltzer, etc, etc.
      At least in my office, people drank all of those things at work and I don’t see why home would or should be any different.

  6. PNW Planner*

    Depending on his neurodiversity, talking with him may not be sufficient. Our eldest daughter has similar challenges, and her understanding of the asked behavior may not match and/or forgets quickly. May speaking with him and then have committee members prepped with reminders. For my daughter, if you speak respectfully but direct (they won’t pick up normal hints) she takes it well. But she does need regular reminders. I appreciate our desire to be respectful of all.

    1. Still*

      I appreciate that it can be challenging but having the committee prepped to give regular reminders is really beyond what’s reasonable to expect of a bunch of strangers who organise a large event.

      If your daughter were incapable of consistently behaving appropriately and not making others uncomfortable by herself, she would need to either stop attending the event, or make sure that she brings someone with her who is fully on board being a chaperone and giving helpful reminders.

      This might very well be support she genuinely needs, but it just isn’t a reasonable accommodation on the part of the event organisers.

      1. Sharon*

        I think giving Alex rules for interaction, explicitly inviting him to bring someone to help him follow the rules, perhaps asking if he needs a reasonable accommodation of some sort (such as letting his helper in free of charge?), and making it clear that he will be banned from future events if he can’t get it together is the way to go. Even if he has a difference or disability, it’s on him to manage that in a way that doesn’t have a significant negative impact on others.

    2. Anonymous solutioniser*

      There are also ways of delivering the reminder without having someone checking in repeatedly and prompting Alex to move on. Some events use interaction/communication badges to allow attendees to signal their openness to being approached. These are similar to conference name badges, but they contain 3 cards in traffic light colours (colour names should also be printed on them for the benefit of colour blind attendees), and you shuffle the one you want to display to the front, changing them around through the day as needed. Green always means that you’re open to being approached by anyone, red means you don’t want to talk to anyone right now, and the rules for amber vary between events, but it’s usually along the lines of “ask first” or “only if we already know each other”. There’s a small initial outlay to make the badges, but you can reuse them for multiple events.

      1. LW 1*

        This is on our list of things we want to implement! I think it would be helpful to all attendees, not just Alex.

        1. Orv*

          I’m generally in favor of that. In particular, many fandoms have a hug culture, and it can be really uncomfortable for people who don’t like to be touched.

        1. Dandylions*

          Wow that’s a nasty and cruel suggestion.

          I get that Alexes of the world can be annoying and difficult. I have an Alex at my LGS. They are people who deserve kindness and accomodations like any other disability.

          1. Still*

            It’s not a nasty or cruel suggestion, it’s a slightly humorous way of pointing out that, while colour badges might be generally helpful for people who want to broadly establish expectations about being approached at a convention, they do absolutely nothing to address wanting to avoid one specific boundary-stomping person.

            Best case, he respects the badge, and so does everyone else, which means the wearer misses out on lots of positive interaction. Worst case, the wearer misses out on lots of positive interaction and Alex still doesn’t take the hint because he’s already demonstrated that he can’t take no for an answer.

          2. House On The Rock*

            It’s neither nasty nor cruel – it points out a flaw in this scheme and also highlights that the LW (and others) seem to be going to a lot of trouble to accommodate and account for Alex at the expense of other attendees. If I’m someone at the con who generally wants to interact with others but am uncomfortable with Alex, what should be “interaction button” say?

          3. Elitist Semicolon*

            I don’t think this was an actual suggestion so much as a way of saying that the badge system is insufficient for shielding people from That Guy Who Makes People Uncomfortable. Like, what if someone is in fact happy to talk to anyone except Alex? Are they supposed to use the “sure, anyone” color and have the same problem as usual, i.e. that they can’t get away from him? Or use one of the other colors and limit convos in a way they might not want?

            Badges are great when the problem or preference rests with the specific person being talked to. But they don’t do anything when the problem is the specific person doing the talking.

      3. Anne of Green Gables*

        I was recently at a large-scale hobby event that used green, yellow, and red but it was specifically for physical contact. Green = hugs ok, yellow = handshake or fist bump ok, red = no physical touch. (For what it’s worth, this was for a hobby mostly participated in by women, though there are more men in the hobby/industry than it sounds like is the case for LW)

      4. e271828*

        Why does everyone at the con have to cater to Alex the Missing Stair by wearing colored badges? Why do you think Alex shouldn’t be solely responsible for Alex?

        1. Orv*

          I don’t think everyone should, nor do I think the colored badges would help particularly with Alex. But based on other cons I’ve been to, I think they’re a good idea in general.

      5. Lucien Nova, Disappointing Australian*

        +1 to the idea of these badges. (Perhaps not in relation to Alex – clearly he needs to not be there – but in general.)

        A convention I’ve begun attending uses this system. Respecting someone’s chosen colour is a requirement and you will get booted out should you flout this rule. As much as I love the con, I am very neurospicy and I do have trouble being comfortable in large groups, and so there was a good chunk of time I had my yellow badge out (I thankfully didn’t need to bring out the red one, which actually surprised me.) Worked a treat and allowed me to enjoy the con without having to worry about trying to deal with communicating at the same time.

        Again, this is not a solution to the Alex problem. The solution to the Alex problem is to remove Alex. But it’s a good system to have in general and I recommend implementing it.

    3. Nonanon*

      I wonder how much of this could play into “accessibility for all” type practices; for example, posting written reminders of con rules in shared locations (and/or audio reminders if the venue can accommodate that), or starting tours with a recap of expectations (“we’ll have five minutes for questions at each site, after that we expect everyone to move to the next location”). It takes burden off the organizers having to attend to one person, gives clear expectations for ALL attendees, and reminders for those who need them.

    4. Jules the 3rd*

      In this situation, he may need to bring someone to assist him with keeping to his limits then. It should be on him to manage his behaviors. (And I say this as a parent who has had to remove her kid from situations in order to manage his behaviors…)

  7. Zombeyonce*

    #1 In addition to talking to Alex about his behavior and how it should change, I hope LW can include information in the materials and possibly introductions that people should feel free to report any issues they’re having with other attendees, and that the staff is there to help. The staff should be trained on how to handle Alex and anyone causing issues compassionately and effectively, too.

    1. The Prettiest Curse*

      An attendee Code of Conduct would probably help here, and many events have these now. (OP can find many examples via their search engine of choice.) We make it clear that both online and in-person attendees (plus speakers, vendors and staff) are agreeing to abide by the Code of Conduct by registering for/attending our events. It also says that violating the Code can get you ejected from an event and/or banned from future events.

      1. Agent Diane*

        I was coming here to check if anyone from other fandoms had said about a Code of Conduct. The benefit of this is it applies to everyone, so if you have a new attendee who breaches it, attendees know how to report it and what the consequences are.

        I appreciate your desire to be inclusive as an event. That inclusivity shouldn’t bend around Alex so much that women – and teenage girls – don’t feel safe.

        1. Worldwalker*

          Or anyone else. Nobody should feel unsafe because of the actions of another attendee.

          I’ve seen cons deploying large signs for things like “no means no” and “cosplay is not an invitation to grope someone” (the latter phrased somewhat better), along with how to report unacceptable behavior. It’s sad that it’s come to this, but better than having certain people’s behavior excused or covered up for years on end.

          If A is the reason B, C, and D decide not to come, it’s a loss — not least to B, C, and D who are the innocent victims here.

          1. Fives*

            My local con (which is HUGE) has numerous “Cosplay is not consent” signs each year. I don’t usually cosplay but the interactions I’ve seen have been really positive.

      2. Ariaflame*

        At a fandom type con I’ve gone to they’ve had clothespeg codes. Wearing Green means ‘happy to be talked to’; yellow for ‘only talk to me if we know each other or I initiate’ and red means ‘please do not talk to me’.
        Can provide clear visual cues for who anyone who is unsure of who they can talk to.

        2. NeuroSpoon*

          My first thought was also traffic light stickers (very common and well-understood in autistic circles). But the problem is, stickering oneself is a blanket communication and other people may be very happy to be approached for a chat by strangers that aren’t Alex.

          +1 for tell him directly (if this really hasn’t already been done)
          +1 for having a general code of conduct for everyone

        3. Anonymous solutioniser*

          Some places also use badges for this – the badge has three different coloured cards in it, and you move the one you want to display to the front. This method takes a bit more setup, but you can include text or symbols on the cards for colour blind attendees.

          1. Aquatic*

            I see how traffic signals could be useful, but they don’t convey what many people might need here: “feel free to start a conversation with me as long as you don’t go on and on about your IP” or “as long as I’ll be able to exit it easily “.

            1. LW 1*

              This is absolutely the one stumbling block I’m considering with the traffic light system! There’s a lot of nuance needed. But I think this could be a great place to start from, especially for this particular audience.

              1. The Unionizer Bunny*

                Since we’re going with the motorized-vehicle analogy, how about speed limits?

                Sometimes you’re at a conference to have lengthy, in-depth discussions of something. Sometimes you just want to get a sampling of what other people are there to talk about, to gather the zeitgeist, or perhaps you don’t have time for more before you have to leave to present for an audience nearby.

                Clock symbols with parts of it shaded in. Green up through the half-hour mark doesn’t mean “every topic is okay”, but should only be used if you are confident that you will be able to signal early when you know it isn’t one of your interests. Green up through the 5-minute mark doesn’t mean “longer is never allowed”, just that it has to be explicitly invited. It’s more about whether the person approaching you should pause and check in.

              2. e271828*

                If a social event needs a traffic-light system to cope with one creepy guy, surely it is less trouble to cope the creepy guy right out of the event.

                At this point, most of your prior attendees know about and dread Alex. Instituting a con-wide Alex Management System after multiple complaints (!) tells them that you are very vested in Alex being there and not so much about everyone else.

            2. Alicent*

              Yeah, I would keep mine on green because I WANT to talk to people who aren’t Alex! I wouldn’t want to avoid everyone because one person is inappropriate.

          2. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

            Would it help to normalize changing the color on your badge during a conversation? I get that it may feel passive aggressive, but coming up with a phrasing that’s clear enough for people who need extra clarity and polite enough for people who need politeness, is *hard*.

            It took me until my 30s to come up with “Sorry, I don’t feel like talking” for strangers who want to make small talk, and that literally only happened because I was sick, and the first iteration was “Sorry, I’m sick, I don’t feel like talking.” I was so excited when I realized I could remove 2 words and have an all-purpose script. But exiting politely and clearly is still an unsolved problem.

        4. metadata minion*

          They’re a great idea in general, but may not really be the solution to the LW’s problem. I’m generally happy to talk to strangers at conventions, but that doesn’t mean I want someone talking *at* me for half an hour when I’m desperately trying to signal “please go away”. You don’t want to end up with a situation where Alex tries to argue “but she was wearing a green badge!” And similarly a kid may want to talk to other kids, but not random adults they don’t know.

      3. Writer Claire*

        This. After way too many issues with attendees creeping on (mostly) women and children, a number of SF&F conventions created Codes of Conduct and clear procedures for folks to report problems. They’ve also trained staff how to handle these situations. It’s made attending cons so much pleasanter, not to mention safer.

        As an example, Readercon has a good policy in place. (Google Readercon Code of Conduct to find it.) I especially like the phrase “demonstrate peaceful intentions and do your best to be a credit to the human race.”

        1. a raging ball of distinction*

          “demonstrate peaceful intentions and do your best to be a credit to the human race” seems like a beautiful life philosophy, never mind the con :,)

          1. Writer Claire*

            The phrase is a good reflection of the con itself, imo. They did go through a hellacious period back in 2012 when the con runners failed to properly apply their sexual harassment policy. (See https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/René_and_Readercon for a summary.) But they did the necessary work to rebuild the con’s reputation and to put in place *and adhere to* a clear and fair code of conduct.

            What’s interesting (sad) is that so many people made the same excuses for the perpetrator back then that I’m seeing in the comments here.

  8. MassMatt*

    #3 I’ve been there, where upper management just refuses to tackle the problem of a bad manager. Your company seems to have gone from “do nothing” to “do something useless so we can pretend the real problem doesn’t exist”.

    I know it’s easy for someone else to say “start looking for another job” but honestly, it seems like your company management sucks and isn’t going to change. You should start looking for another job.

    1. Ron McDon*

      So true. I’m leaving my job because of a double whammy of an unmanaged coworker *and* bad manager!

      When either issue was brought to the attention of a higher-up, their reaction was to deny it’s happening and ‘punish’ the complainer by alternately freezing them out and inventing issues with their work.

      So many of my small team are looking for other jobs; I wonder how many of us need to leave before they actually believe there’s an issue!

    2. Myrin*

      What especially gets me about this one is that if laws get broken/codes get violated, the governing body is not going to react to “But we made everyone attend a multi-day teambuilding event!!” with “Oh well, nevermind, then!”. Absolutely delusional behaviour.

      1. Bilateralrope*

        Which makes me wonder how long until the LW is required to report the continued non-compliance to someone outside the company because reporting it internally has failed

    4. Anon Just for This*

      I’ve been in government for a while and in my experience, this is fairly common (though I’m sure it’s not the same everywhere). There seems to be little willingness for people to do real performance management with their direct reports in management. I quit a job because we got a new manager who made everyone stressed and miserable. It became clear that nobody was going to have a conversation with her about how her approach was counterproductive and harming morale. Basically, unless you were breaking rules or clearly being abusive, there was no intervention or coaching.

      So three of us quit in the span of a few months, including me. That part of the organization got shuffled around a bit and now she has more responsibilities and staff to supervise. She still sucks, but each person has to deal with her less than when she was focused solely on one project.

      1. len*

        this is exactly my experience in government too. micromanagement of individual contributors, no management or accountability at all for people leaders.

    5. Ama*

      I’ve also seen senior management finally actually do something about a bad manager — and then start micromanaging everyone who remains “to prevent this from happening again” even though there’s no evidence anyone else was a problem.

  9. anon for this*

    For LW #1, if Alex’s behavior is truly a neurodivergence thing, then he’ll likely be glad for the clear boundaries and lines to stay within. If he’s just an ass, he’ll make that clear, too. If he can’t attend events without making people uncomfortable, then he needs to stop attending the events until he can get that sorted out–with therapy, with self-reflection, with learning how to not be a jerk, whatever is applicable.

    1. Worldwalker*

      Remember that the two are not mutually exclusive. Neurotypical people have no monopoly on being jerks.

      1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        IME as soon as a neurotypical person acts like an ass, people assume they’re neurodivergent or mentally ill.

        1. Tree*

          IME as soon as a man acts like an ass they get the ND assumption. Not that it never happens, but women get far less benefit of the doubt.

    2. RM*

      Yeah, based on people in my life, I get the sense that he knows not to start a discussion of [IP] with randos, but logically at [IP] Con, everyone is interested in [IP] so I can start convos with anyone! Because we all share this interest! And the optics of being the only grown man in a space chatting with kids doesn’t occur to him due to his disability. Not being able to quickly or easily generalize from multiple people hard-stopped my conversation with their family -> don’t approach fellow fans who are kids or have kids in their group, is in fact his social disability.

      1. RM*

        Which is to say, somewhere along the line, he figured out or had it explained that most people are not interested in [IP], therefore you should not start talking about it out of the blue. I suspect that this guy doesn’t randomly approach children for conversation in everyday life. Someone needs to explain that those same social rules still apply and are not superseded by the fandom excitement of the con. This is really a job for a friend/family/support worker, who should probably be attending with him as well.

  10. ACM*

    So as a neurodivergent who has difficulty reading social cues, I’d say a direct conversation with Alex with Alison’s script is the way to go. He’s going to be very embarrassed and feel very bad that he’s missed those social cues when he thought he was Following The Rules and being friendly in safe context, but it’s best to do it now and give him time to process things, but that’s RSD for you.

    1. Nodramalama*

      Maybe he genuinely doesn’t know and will be embarrassed, but I would point out that he has already been banned from the social media groups because he kept talking and texting someone AFTER he was told to stop, and then sent gifts. Thats not missing social cues. That’s refusing to do something you’ve been told not to.

      1. Annie*

        Oof, yeah, there’s that history.

        At BEST, he genuinely thought that sending gifts was an appropriate way to show you’re sorry for crossing someone’s social boundary and/or is one of those people who needs instructions delivered very bluntly, e.g. “I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Could you please stop?” sounded to Alex like an invitation that he could accept or decline, whereas he needed to hear, “I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Please don’t contact me in any way ever again.” in order to get the message.

      2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        Sometimes NT people think they’re being clear when they’re really just being slightly less coded than usual. Think of how many times people write in saying things like, “I told them it wasn’t necessary to…” and Alison responds, “but have you told them not to” and make sure they’ve been clear. And that’s without any knowledge of neurodivergence.

        1. Orv*

          At a certain point it gets exhausting to try to plug all the loopholes. Like, I’m not sure a relationship where “you told me not to text you but didn’t say anything about sending gifts to your home address” is an excuse is sustainable.

          1. Dahlia*

            That’s not a neurodivergency thing. You dealt with a creepy person – please don’t paint us all with the same brush.

        2. Dahlia*

          Sometimes NT people will literally and explicitly state something and then expect us to guess their secret hidden meaning while acting like we’re the weird ones for taking them literally.

        3. CityMouse*

          It’s victim blaming to suggest Joyce and these women and girls ate somehow just not communicating directly.

  11. ACM*

    Oh, right, and Alex might have a small amount of upset/backlash/resentment when he’s told, but he sounds fairly well-meaning and decent, so it’ll (probably) pass quickly enough. It’s going to prod a social sore spot and it’s gonna hurt and that’s gonna provoke a response.

    1. allathian*

      Depends. He’s already been banned from a social media group because he kept texting someone and sending them gifts after being told not to contact them.

      I’d say it’s time to hit Alex with the banhammer, hard. This has nothing to do with respect for differences in brain function. Honestly Alex sounds like a creep.

      1. RVA Cat*

        This. What clinches it for me is that Alex knows how to behave at his job – and the “high-powered” part leaps out. There’s a sense of entitlement here, whether it’s intentional or not. I am 100% sure Alex doesn’t act like this around men.

        1. Caramel & Cheddar*

          I mean we’ve all encountered high powered people who are creeps — I don’t think it necessarily follows that he knows how to behave at his job! (Which is more of a comment about creepy folks in the upper echelons of management than it is about Alex, whose behaviour at work we can’t really know from the letter.)

        2. run mad; don't faint*

          You may be right, but this letter reminds me of my brother who is neurodivergent. He does well at his job because there are clear cut rules he has to follow and roles he has to fill. This is what he’s allowed to put in a report; that is what he’s allowed to say to the press; this is exactly what his job entails; that isn’t… Other social areas aren’t always as clear cut for him, but he mostly relies on being very polite and formal which seems to get him by.

          It worries me that he disregarded Joyce’s boundaries. I can think of reasons that might have happened, some of which could be addressed with a very clear conversation, but some which might not. No matter which it is though, it seems better to me to keep him away from Joyce altogether and to take Joyce on board in deciding what degree of presence she is comfortable with him having at the convention while she is there.

        3. RM*

          Eh, maybe the men at his job have been nasty and/or a boss said directly You cannot do X Y or Z at work. So he learned there and struggled to generalize to other contexts or people. If you’re not perceiving negative feedback unless it’s extremely direct or harsh, and women are more likely to give soft feedback, I could see how this would happen without a lot of personal sexism or ill will. Just general societal sexism/double standards of behavior.

        4. The Unionizer Bunny*

          I am 100% sure Alex doesn’t act like this around men.

          Because they haven’t complained?

          Men tend to be more oblivious to this kind of behavior because they rarely have occasion to be afraid that people who violate social norms in initially-harmless ways are going to follow it up later with less-harmless violations. It’s quite possible Alex has been acting exactly the same way around men and young boys, but they haven’t reported it as much. This is the kind of question that should be answered by something more than “let’s go from the people in charge making one assumption to the people in charge making exactly the opposite assumption”. Following up can be difficult without making it seem like much more of an issue than it is (because it’d mean speaking with lots of people who may have not been thinking of it as anything noteworthy), but observation can also be useful, if you end up waiting through part of another event to gather more information. There’s also a question of the demographics there – if men and boys are only rarely seen in attendance, it’s going to be more difficult to ascertain how often Alex approaches them compared to the female attendees.

    2. Generic Name*

      But he contacted a woman by sending unwanted gifts after he was banned from a group for his behavior and also after she asked him to stop contacting her. I don’t see how this is well meaning.

      1. CityMouse*

        This. Unwanted contact, sending packages after you’ve been told not to is NOT well meaning, it’s harassment. Having a disability doesn’t make harassment acceptable.

  12. Bambue*

    LW 4 : PornHub is known to publish interesting data analytics blog posts that are respected in the community. Maybe she is just a fan of those? Probably not, but a good cover story if anyone asks

    1. DJ*

      Yeah, I also think Alison’s response is a little lacking in nuance. We don’t know what this person’s career ambitions are, and it is a perfectly acceptable sticker at some jobs.

        1. Catherine*

          I used to know a pack of developers who all had a sticker for a different, fairly well known porn site on their laptops because they built and maintained the site.

          1. metadata minion*

            Sure, but are there jobs where it’s appropriate to have advertisement for a porn site on your work laptop if your work isn’t *for the porn company*?

              1. metadata minion*

                Right, I was responding to DJ’s claim that there were jobs where a porn sticker would be appropriate.

    2. scandi*

      PornHub is also well-known for monetising (and delaying taking down after being informed about) video recordings of rapes and child sexual abuse material. I don’t think any cover story is good enough to cover that.

    3. Antilles*

      Probably not, but a good cover story if anyone asks
      Not in the slightest.
      First off, “if anyone asks” is itself a decent-sized IF. Sure, there are people who would say something, but there’s a lot more people who wouldn’t say a word – they’d just quietly be uncomfortable and question your professionalism without even giving you a chance to explain.
      Secondly, lol if you think literally anybody would believe that cover story. Nobody’s buying that, in the same way that nobody believed previous generations of teenagers who claimed “just keeping those magazines for the articles”.

      All that said, this is viewing it from a work perspective. On a college campus, it’s fine and OP can just let it go.

      1. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

        On a college campus, sexual harassment rules still apply. College students are allowed to be uncomfortable or triggered by explicit references to porn. You have no idea what any of them have been through. The pornhub sticker is inappropriate in a classroom setting.

    4. Falling Diphthong*

      I mean, you can read data analytics without stickers.

      This seems one of those hypothetical very narrow scenarios in which someone fancies that the only people who would judge them negatively for something are also people who will open a conversation about that topic, so they can become educated by the sticker person. Which then winds up not working out in meatspace.

    6. Jeanine*

      Frankly why can’t we try just minding our own business when it comes to a student’s sticker on their laptop? It affects no one.

      1. Madame Desmortes*

        Not so. If this is a typical classroom, the instructor has this full in their face for some/all of class. Speaking as an instructor… yeah, no, don’t want. If one of my colleagues pulled this, I’d have the beginning of a sexualized-environment complaint. (By itself that sticker wouldn’t be enough, granted.) I don’t think it’s that much different coming from a student. It’s their class, but it’s my workplace.

        I once had a student turn in a screencast when their screen’s background image was… we’ll call it a pinup. After taking a walk alone to yell at the landscape for a few minutes, I came back and sent a calm email to the student explaining that this was inappropriate to show an instructor.

        The student took it in good part, thankfully, and after his graduation we became cordial professional acquaintances.

      2. UncleFrank*

        I consider it part of my job as a college professor to help students learn professional boundaries. Mostly that’s just modeling them myself, but sometimes it can be helpful to say “hey, be aware this might give people a bad impression of you”. In this case it would depend on my relationship with the student. If I knew they were interested in industries that tend to have a more formal culture, I would give them a heads up.

        1. len*

          I really don’t think this is part of a college professor’s job. She likely understands professional boundaries just fine but she is making decisions in line with the norms of her actual current, non-professional context. Mind one’s own business, imo.

  13. Horticulture Realist*

    My immediate reaction to the response to LW1 is, “…or what?” You can certainly talk to Alex about his behavior and the feedback you’ve received, but what is plan B if he doesn’t change after that? LW1 already said they can’t have someone keep tabs on him like previous committees have done, and that obviously didn’t work anyway if he’s still a problem. At some point, the org may need to be willing to ban him from events, but is that the only other solution?

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I think if the straightforward conversation (which I would do by email so he has time to digest it, can look back at it, etc.) doesn’t work, then plan B would be to tell him he can only attend virtually (since it sounds from the letter like virtual is an option; if it weren’t, you’d ban him from attending at that point).

  14. Volunteers*

    LW1, at nearly every con I’ve attended or researched, volunteers who give up 1/2 day or so of their time to do something for the con get free admission for the rest of the event. If you don’t want to ban Alex, then I would assign volunteers willing to take on the task to accompany/talk to/keep him from bothering others in half day shifts across the con. It may cost an extra few free entries, but it seems like a workable solution. I know people who would be quite happy to discuss a shared fandom ad nauseam for half a day without any recompense; free entry to the rest of the con is an added bonus that shows they are, indeed, doing you a service.

    1. Addgene*

      +1 on all of this.

      Honestly, this may be my “the worst they can say is no” perspective, but I really agree that the volunteer way isn’t as bad as an idea as you might think and not everyone is going to find that way of communicating a bother. I’m autistic and honestly hanging around a fellow autist who wants to talk about a fandom I like, who I don’t have to mask in front of and who I would feel comfortable being direct with and not reading into my tone sounds like a good time, whether the person is a 15 year old girl or a 40 year old man. We often like each other, have a lot of time for each other and find it more relaxing to be around each other.

      Also, I really like Alison’s rule suggestions because they are clear, but it probably needs a bit of tweaking to be read by an autistic person as feedback rather than being misunderstood and told you are terrible. Instead of “crossed boundaries”, maybe say something like “sometimes kids don’t feel like they can say no to or end a conversation with an adult they don’t know, so just as a blanket rule, please stick to striking up conversations with just the adults and keep an eye out for signs that people might want to get back to the tour.” “Crossing boundaries” sounds too unspecific and could be read to have an extremely negative connotation. Naming why the kids won’t want to talk has a higher chance of it being received as well as possible.

      Have fun at your event!

      1. Despachito*

        + 1.

        I remember how confused I was in my earlier years if somebody told me I did something that was not socially appropriate, and:

        – it was so vague I could not put my finger on exactly what it was
        – I felt terrible that I must have transgressed a rule but didn’t know which one
        – sometimes the person was angry and unpleasant (which will certainly not be OP’s case) which felt very unpleasant to me, and I felt obliged to comply even if I did not fully understand why (because why else would they person be so angry if I didn’t do something atrocious, right?) and I only realized after many years that they were just being AHs.

        So I think it would be a kindness to Alex to tell him basically what OP told us in their original post – ie to be very specific as to what the problem is about – and see what happens.

        I know that we should not be made responsible for hand-holding other adults, but back in my time I would have appreciated such clear and kind advice, and it would probably make me more bearable back then :)

      2. Annie*

        For “keep an eye out for signs that people might want to get back to the tour”, I would equip Alex with specific signs to watch out for and/or educate any volunteers watching Alex to point out those signs to Alex, e.g. “I think she wants to wrap up the chat and continue with the tour. See the shoulders/feet/head turning in that direction?”

      3. Ellis Bell*

        I definitely agree with the more specific language, and I think a person accompanying him would be best, especially if they can give some feedback and coaching to say “Okay, we walked away just then because X was a sign they wanted to end the conversation”. It’s easy to believe that someone “has been told what to do” but we don’t live in a world where people bluntly say that they want to end a conversation; whenever I’ve tried to explain the alternatively soft conversation endings to students who genuinely struggle, they can’t comply with the signs without a little bit of interim coaching. It’s not necessarily on OP or anyone at the event to provide this coaching! This is a successful adult who can probably access his own coaching and support, so if it’s not possible to support his attendance of this event, do be factual and specific about how he’s messing up; this is better than vague suggestions that can be misunderstood as him being disliked or a terrible person, which would drive a need to apologise. It would also explain that he might have similar problems at a similar event without seeking better conversation coaching.

        1. La Triviata*

          LW1: You might also keep an eye out (if you haven’t already) and see if Alex tailors his interactions to the person/people he’s dealing with. If his interactions with adult men are within the social norms, that’s one thing. If all his interactions with children/young women are a problem, then you have a real problem. If he can tailor his interactions so he’s not a problem, then he’s sufficiently aware enough that he can do the same for everyone. If he routinely gets clingy or monopolizes vulnerable people, he may be aware but sees no downside or repercussions so he has no reason to change.

          1. run mad; don't faint*

            The LW said in another comment that Alex is often the only man there. The fandom seems to skew strongly in favor of girls and women. So there’s probably not a good way to judge that in this context.

        2. Orv*

          A lot of people are uncomfortable with how rude they have to be to people like this, because in the NT world saying, “I am heading into the bathroom now, I do not want to continue the conversation there, and I don’t want to pick it up again when I come back out” would be unacceptable, but it’s the level of detail you have to go to with some ND people. Or they will try to follow you into the bathroom to keep talking to you.

    2. GammaGirl1908*

      Agree with this. I attended aerobics conventions as a volunteer and you did a day of setup or breakdown or door duty or whatever in exchange for a day to play. If there are volunteers at this event already, assigning a carefully selected one or two to be attendee escorts or participant people-watchers or whatever you want to call it could work.

      1. Worldwalker*

        Among the odder things I’ve done as a con vounteer was sleeping on the floor inside the door of the A/V equipment storage room because nobody had a key, so they couldn’t lock it.

    3. Jenesis*

      But if the cost of allowing Alex is 3-4 fewer con attendees pay the entry fee, and the cost of banning Alex is 1 fewer con attendee pays the entry fee, it might be a hard sell for the con financially.

      It might be easier if there are already prearranged volunteers who are willing to take on Alex-wrangling in addition to their existing duties or (as Addgene suggests) really enthusiastic attendees who wouldn’t see it as a burden.

      1. Worldwalker*

        Especially because volunteer-run cons (as opposed to, say, the commercial Comicons) are often barely scraping by, financially. Running a con is expensive, from paying for the venue to renting chairs from the Only Allowed Vendor (TM), and everything else like plane fare and housing for the guest of honor to trays of Costco cookies for the volunteers.

        And one Alex can cost more than a few attendees. People frequently attend in groups, and if Betty decides not to attend because of Alex, then her friends Charlie, Dora, Ed, Frieda, and George might decide to stick with her, too, and go do something else. You get one person, lose six people.

        As for the idea of providing a minder, where do you stop? People aren’t just jerks or non-jerks — there’s a whole spectrum of behavior. Where’s the cutoff point where someone is given an escort? Remember, too, that it’s going to have to be a rotating cast of people — nobody wants a free membership that they can’t use because they have to be with Alex all weekend. If you require 8 hours work for a free membership, that’s going to be probably about 5-6 people you have to comp for Alex. They still consume all the resources that paying members do (plus the cookies in the staff room!). But if a weekend badge is, say, $60, you’re gaining that $60 from Alex but losing $300+ from the people you have to comp to act as his rotating staff of minders.

        Also, convention volunteers are frequently in short supply, and spread rather thin. If you’re taking 5 of your volunteers for Alex-minding, that’s 5 people you don’t have to do all the million-and-0ne other tasks running a con requires. You don’t magically get 5 more volunteers.

        Then there’s the issue if someone who previously hasn’t been enough of a problem to assign them minders does something egregious. I can see their victim’s lawyer saying “the convention assigned minders to Alex but not Zack, so they’re liable because Zack did (some awful thing).” And they’ll sue the con chair, and the volunteer coordinator, everyone else they can single out, personally, too. That’s a disturbingly large and wiggly can of worms.

        It saves logistical, financial, and potentially legal trouble to just have a set of rules and require all members to abide by them; if they need a minder, they have to bring their own.

        1. The Kulprit*

          I wanna be as special as Alex! All these solutions, bending conventions, 3rd chances, just for him. If I messaged someone so much they told me to stop, and then I sent things *to their home*, and was removed from a social media group over it — I would expect to be banned from all things this organization puts on in the future.

          He either adheres to a code of conduct, or he’s banned. Or is his attendance and enjoyment vastly more important than everyone else’s?

          1. Pool Noodle Barnacle Pen0s*

            THIS! Why is Alex entitled to enjoy the con at his own comfort level, but the women and children he’s harassing aren’t? Mind-boggling.

            He should get one more chance, and be explicitly warned at the beginning – DO NOT approach any children. And if someone walks away from you, don’t follow. If he can’t adhere to these rules (which should be SIMPLE for someone with a “high-level” job) then he gets asked to leave and never come back. Absolutely no one will miss his presence, I assure you.

            2. Jennifer Strange*

              If your disability requires you to have a handler to help keep you in line then you should be bringing someone, not expecting volunteers to give up their time to babysit you.

            3. The Kulprit*

              This isn’t about support needs, this is about centering the comfort of one guy over the *multiple* and *repeated* complaints of feeling uncomfortable by women and girls.

              But for argument’s sake, Reasonable Accommodation cannot unduly impede or restrict others. It is not reasonable that Joyce be stalked, that the women and girls he makes uncomfortable have to put in the exact right cheat code (case sensitive) to be left alone. It is not reasonable that a whole set of plans and procedures be put in place to manage One Guy.

          3. CommanderBanana*

            Right? I’m neurodivergent, but I’m a woman, so no one is as deeply invested in making sure that I get to do whatever I want as they are for the Alexes of the world.

            1. Tree*

              Same.

              Also, if I were volunteering for an event and was told one of my duties was making sure an adult man who has stalked one of the speakers and has a high powered job but can’t understand he can’t pester little girls … I would no longer be volunteering or attending.

              1. CommanderBanana*

                Not only that, but I would absolutely be putting this org on blast all over the fandom and making sure that everyone knew exactly why I wasn’t attending.

                2. Turquoisecow*

                  100%, and it’s honestly surprising no one has done this yet, I bet someone will soon, and then there will be even more people who are like “shit, this happened? I’m not going.”

        2. Nancy*

          Agree with all of this. Volunteer run events often do not have the people and money to do some of the suggestions given. And what happens if they don’t get any volunteers?

    4. Dog momma*

      I wouldn’t go to an event where I had to babysit somebody, let alone an adult. Not for all the free admission in the world. And if I was an employee there, I’d push back hard. Who’s to say he wouldn’t creep on the employee or volunteer.

      He’s making multiple women and children uncomfortable, even though he’s been told to stop at least once. You have a speaker who’s had a bad experience with him that now has to be on alert that he not approach her again. If she doesn’t know already, she may back out.
      note that this is an event attended mainly by women and girl children. And he’s a guy. a guy act/ interacting strangely. Ban him before something happens. There’s red flags all over this & my Spidey sense is way up.
      Code of conduct going forward. Security backup if available in the event center. But get this guy out of there!

    5. I should really pick a name*

      If you are at the point where you are assigning people to accompany someone to prevent them from bothering people, that person should not be attending.

      This solution is prioritizing Alex’s comfort to an unusual degree.

    6. Hyaline*

      I’m not sure I agree that it solves the problem to just keep buffering Alex–at some level, even though he’s dealing with a disability, he should be able to accept and follow clear and firm boundaries. However, I bet the event already has volunteers. If there aren’t enough to ensure, in general, a safe and welcoming space, maybe the event simply needs a few more volunteers who are equipped and empowered to run interference on *any and all* potential issues at the con. It may be that additional training and support for enforcing rules/guidelines would be helpful overall, with Alex and any Alex-like attendees that crop up in future. For example, when LW described Alex talking to attendees during tours, I wondered why the tour guide (or another volunteer) wasn’t intervening to say “Hey, let’s keep side conversations to a minimum so others can hear.”

    7. Olive*

      I disagree, because per the LW, the volunteers are women, and one of Alex’s issues is that he didn’t listen to a woman telling him to stop contacting her and escalated to sending things to her personal address. Asking a woman with no experience in being a behavioral aid to spend hours with a man who has already behaved inappropriately with a woman (who is speaking at the same conference no less) in exchange for admission isn’t appropriate.

    8. Jeanine*

      I like this idea. It would provide for ….god forbid….Alex’s needs too. Everyone wants the neurodivergent person to change their habits and their behavior for everyone else, meanwhile their needs are never met. No one ever adapts for them. This would be a good solution.

      1. Lightbourne Elite*

        “Adapting for ND folks” should not and should never include “having a woman act as a sacrificial lamb for boundary stomping behavior”.

      2. Jackalope*

        “No one ever adapts for them” – for years the people running this convention have bent over backwards to accommodate Alex at the expense of other attendees who also deserve to be comfortable. To say nothing of Joyce, who was stalked by him previously and is now a speaker at the con. Why shouldn’t they adapt for HER need not to be around her stalker while she’s giving a professional presentation?

        1. Jackalope*

          (Clarification: I was assuming Joyce is being paid for her talk. Since it sounds like a smaller con that may not be the case, but to a certain extent she’ll still be in work mode while giving her presentation, answering questions, etc.)

        1. Jeanine*

          He hasn’t done anything truly wrong here, if they don’t like him I’m sorry but it’s obvious he is just trying to connect over special interests, it’s what neurodivergent people do and it’s never understood by people who aren’t that way. I say go with the flow of telling him that they don’t want contact but there is no need to call him a creepy stalker. Or ban him. It is STILL a good idea to have someone with him to talk to so he can participate too.

    3. Meat Oatmeal*

      Intellectual property, I assume — the show or product line or whatever is central to LW1’s event.

    4. Recent grad*

      Intellectual Property! In this case it’s standing in for the name of the IP they are fans of – think something like Star Wars, Doctor Who, Sherlock, etc

      1. amoeba*

        Huh, interesting! I was only aware of that meaning in, like, a work context (patents etc.), have never heard it used for a fandom!

        1. Jenesis*

          I see it sometimes used in a fandom context when talking about the business practices of the company that produces the product.

          Example sentences:
          “#COMPANY is trying to make its IPs more inclusive of women and queer people.”
          “Did you see the new #CROSSOVER? It must have cost a lot of money to gain the rights to that IP!”

          1. Orv*

            Yup. Or, “if you do that fan project, be careful, because Yoyodyne Entertainment is very protective of their IP.”

        2. WS*

          It’s often used when it’s a large fandom that involves multiple media and/or multiple canons and you want to encompass the whole thing. Star Trek or Star Wars, for example.

    5. Noquestionsplease*

      Removed this and replies speculating on the fandom, for anonymity purposes. – Alison

    6. WellRed*

      Ha! The best I could come up with was in person. At least I knew it wasn’t internet protocol. #abbreviations

  16. Ron McDon*

    Lw2 – one of my colleagues drink Kombucha, which comes in brown glass bottles. The first time I saw her drinking it, I really wondered if she was drinking beer!

    So probably don’t drink Kombucha at your desk/on camera, or be prepared to explain its not a beet, if you do :)

      1. coffee*

        “Don’t worry, I am not drinking a beet” is a statement that immediately raise a number of questions.

      1. Nodramalama*

        While kombucha can have traces of alcohol, it is a non alcoholic drink and is classified that way.

      2. amoeba*

        It has, by definition, less than 0.5% alcohol. Apparently there used to be brands that contained more pre 2015, which is why stronger testing regimes were implemented. It’s very much consumed as a non-alcoholic drink!

      4. metadata minion*

        If you make your own kombucha it can end up with non-trivial amounts of alcohol, but still *way* less than beer and not enough that it would intoxicate anyone unless you’re incredibly sensitive to it. The fact that it contains alcohol is mostly relevant if you have some religious or medical need to avoid any alcohol whatsoever.

    3. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Some brands of root beer have the same problem.

      There was an unfortunate snapshot of me at a work event as we ended a OT week. I was on antihistamines, carrying a brown-bottle root beer, and laughing. The combination made me look extremely drunk. :(

      My boss: “We just won’t give THAT one to the newsletter!”

  17. Azure Jane Lunatic*

    This is on the very conservative side: at my high-traffic reception desk, our supervisors wanted us to have an opaque or semi-opaque company branded water bottle for all non-water beverages. They thought it was a more polished look than soda cans or whatever.

    That was also the job that had a hard time with interesting colored hair, in Seattle, in 2018.

    I would say that a coffee cup is the ultimate video conference accessory to disguise any beverage that people might comment on, but apparently some people are weird about other people drinking coffee late in the day?

    1. nnn*

      If people are weird about other people drinking coffee late in the day and anyone feels the need to address this, get a mug that says something like “I love tea” on it.

    2. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

      If somebody is weird about when I drink coffee, that is a THEM problem, not a me problem. They need to get over themselves and shush.

    3. Donkey Hotey*

      “Interesting colored hair in Seattle in 2018.”

      I just removed my glasses and pinched the bridge between my eyes, sighing, “oh, that will go well.”

    4. Bast*

      That’s funny about the coffee; in just about every office I have worked in, people come in with Starbucks and Dunkin at all hours. 9:00? Perfect time for coffee. Noon? Time for second coffee. 3:00 PM? Perfect time to brew coffee in the breakroom. No one ever brought it up except to sometimes ask for the person to bring them back one too.

    5. Orv*

      I had a job like that at a bank. They didn’t want customers to see branded beverage containers, so everything had to be covered.

  18. Adam*

    Weird thing that popped out at me:

    > I’m part of a small team in a government agency. The team lead is my skip-level boss, Julie.

    Either “small” means something different in this context or you have 2+ managers for a team of like 4-5 people? That seems like a problem already.

    1. Nodramalama*

      I thought skip level boss was another term for grand boss. If it is, I wouldn’t say that goes against it being a small team? But maybe it’s a term I’m not familiar with!

    2. Ron McDon*

      This sounds like a similar set up to my government agency job – a team of around around 10 admins, with 3 (!) managers above us, then our skip-level boss who is the team lead for us and the managers (and many other teams).

      And you would be correct that so many managers for a small team is an issue in itself…

    3. allathian*

      Team lead sounds really odd in this context. In my world it’s akin to a coordinator who can assign task and give some feedback on performance but isn’t in charge of hiring and firing.

    4. Thomas*

      Project-specific team that has members from multiple regular departments, meaning the skip-level boss is the person with authority over all involved?

    5. Alicent*

      It’s common in government jobs. My husband has a similar setup for his work and there are several levels of management above him in a small team. Usually it works out fine because they manage different aspects.

    6. NorthBayTeky*

      I initially imagined my last workplace. There were 5 technicians, a coordinator managing them and a deputy director over 2 departments. Depending on who was in that role had a huge impact on the workers. The coordinator was our manager but if the director didn’t consult with the coordinator about rolling out a new technology, they could make it very difficult.

      Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. -Putt’s Law

    7. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      I am on a team of 6 people including my boss. There are 3 levels above me. We have a niche job function. My skip level boss manages several teams each with a very specific function. For them to try to manage the minutia of our very diverse job functions without a point person would be insanity

    8. BellaStella*

      Ahahaha. I am one of five staff on a team of ten. Five managers. It is a shitshow as you have noted.

  19. Glass*

    So I did a university didactics training once and the old white prof running it (expert in didactics) said we should drink out of a glass if we‘re the lecturer. Not out of a bottle. And this stuck with me forevermore because his reasoning was that we‘re being looked at by the students and if they see us pursing our lips and sucking on a bottle this would lead to wrong associations. Totally crazy to say that in a didactics training. And says much about him that he wanted to talk about this topic during his own didactics training. Should have reported him then.

    1. Distractable Golem*

      I had this happen too, but the professor gave me this feedback during an individual meeting during office hours! I was mortified then, furious now (25 years later).

      1. UncleFrank*

        !!!!! That’s terrible!!!!! I always drink my water out of a cup with a straw at work (including when I’m lecturing) because I’m pretty accident prone and I don’t want to get water all over myself.

  20. TokenJockNerd*

    Autistic woman who has been at a lot of conventions attended by a lot of autistic men reporting in.

    In my capacity as “Autistic woman who has been fixated on by a lot of autistic men”, which, let me tell you, is hard to write on a resume.

    Quite honestly, it sounds like Alex needs a behavioral aide. Something you’re not able to provide. If he has a suitable behavioral aide, you’re able to offer that person free admission, but clearly he is not able to be safe for other people.

    He’s almost certainly focusing on women and girls who are also neurodivergent, at least by accident. This is *scary*. Even if y’all think he means well, it’s *scary*. And, with as much patience as I can muster, they don’t “have to understand it’s because of his disability”. Stalking behavior is not a reasonable accommodation. When you factor in that he’s probably targeting women and girls who’ve had their boundaries broken down by such things as ‘the way we as a society treat neurodivergent girls’ (ask me the abuse rate! or don’t! You’ll hate it!), the way girls and women tend to be socialized in general, and “your neurodivergence doesn’t matter but think about this poor boy suffering so”.

    I may sound frustrated. That would be a correct read. Because while there’s reasonable accommodations for neurodivergence to be made, “you don’t need to observe others’ boundaries” isn’t one of them. Other attendees shouldn’t have to defend their boundaries aggressively, and it really reads like they’re needing to.

    Alex needs a behavioral aide. That’s not your responsibility. He’s not going to enjoy being told that. You can be kind in saying so, but please remember he isn’t the only neurodivergent person (you know that! you said so!) and he isn’t the only neurodivergent person directly effected by his behavior. Protect the objects of his fixation.

    Good luck.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Ooh, thank you for the term “behavioural aide”, we use different terminology in the UK. I definitely agree one is probably required for Alex to attend safely and that it’s probably out of budget for the event to provide one. But Alex has a high level career right? Why couldn’t he provide his own? I work with SEN assistants and they’d be delighted to make some weekend cash, particularly if they shared his interests in the event and could get in for free (but I do think Alex would still be a lot of work). Definitely agree with you that you can’t prioritise the one person with the most obvious ND needs over the silent but probably urgent needs of many others. Autistic women and girls end up carrying the burden here.

    2. kitto*

      this is so helpful, thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. and i’m sorry that so many of these men have zeroed in on you like this, that’s so scary. you’re right that people shouldn’t have to defend their boundaries as aggressively as it seems they do at this conference, hopefully they figure out a way to put the responsibility back onto alex

    3. Anon Conrunner*

      Yes, exactly this. Keeping the community safe must come ahead of making a known creeper feel included.

      Also, the suggestion from other commenters that the event supplies volunteers to rotate through being that behavioural aide is so off-base. Alex can bring someone with him if he wants to attend safely, it’s not on the organisers to sink time and energy into building guardrails around one bad apple.

    5. CityMouse*

      I also think there’s this deep frustration that every woman or girl has heard excuses for a man’s behavior like this. “Oh that’s how he is” or “He doesn’t know better”. We’re tired. But at some point it doesn’t matter why, it just needs to stop.

    8. Joana*

      All of this. The first thing that ran through my mind when it came up that he’s neurodiverse is “Well, it’s a fandom space, a lot of the women and girls probably are, too.” And while a behavior aide is a reasonable accommodation, you’re right that the con shouldn’t feel like they’re the one who should have to provide that person. I’ve been to several myself and the aide for someone with a physical disability etc was always allowed in for free to accompany the person they’re helping, so it’s not a financial burden in that way.

    9. Liz the Snackbrarian*

      Exactly, and he’s already overstepped boundaries. I don’t think he should be included in the event anymore. I’m sorry you’ve been the target of this fixation in the past.

    11. Amesip*

      I’m also an autistic woman who frequents fandom-based events. The men who attend these events can certainly be…something. As you alluded to, neurodivergent guys with high analytical intelligence and low emotional intelligence do not have the same ‘life training’ that ladies with similar issues do. So neurodivergent women tend to be far more self-aware of their social difficulties, which can unfortunately manifest in crippling social anxiety.
      These men can blissfully waltz through life making blunder after social blunder, usually at women who are culturally framed as caregivers, because no one will spell it out for them.

      I agree that a behavioral aide would be ideal, but this man clearly has the ability to comprehend complexity at least in some capacity. Sit him down. Tell him in no uncertain terms – as a committee – the specific behaviors he does that are unacceptable. Give examples. Read him negative reviews if privacy of the writers can be maintained. Have event staff trained to watch for his behavior and shut it down in the moment.

      As Alison has often said, speaking as a group is more likely to gain attention from even the most stubborn and unaware people. Hearing it from the committee, seeing evidence in writing, and then being directly corrected by staff in the moment should either fix the issue or get him to opt out of coming. (He can immerse himself in the fandom from his house if he really wants to.)

  21. Cardboard Marmalade*

    For LW1, I was recently at a convention (special interest group, not professional) that had a really great, cheap, simple strategy for helping people communicate their interest/disinterest in chatting with strangers. At the check-in table where everyone picked up their badges, there were three big spools of little round dot stickers, one for red, one for yellow, one for green. You put a sticker on your badge to represent if you were eager to have conversations with strangers (green); just there to be in community but were feeling overwhelmed or didn’t want to chat (red); and then yellow was more like “I might be up for connecting, please ask first.” Most people chose two stickers and put one on the front of their badge and one on the back to flip to depending on how they were feeling. It was a really nice system that I think equally supported those of us with various forms of social anxiety or difficulty navigating social cues, and those of us who had been socialized not to be assertive about setting conversational boundaries.

    1. amoeba*

      Sure – but it doesn’t really help if you’re generally up for chatting, but creeped out by one particular guy!

      1. kiki*

        Yeah, and having a badge that says you’re open to chatting can make it harder to shut down somebody who is making you uncomfortable. Normally, I might tell somebody who is making me uncomfortable that I’d prefer some time by myself, but if they can see I have a green sticker I foresee awkward pushback.

        It’s a cool system that would help a lot of people have a better experience, I just don’t know if it would actually help with the Alex situation. I could see some of the young girl attendees choosing a green sticker because they’re excited to talk to their peers but they don’t expect to be approached by an adult man wanting to talk for long stretches.

    2. Daria grace*

      It might help but the problem could be that people green for conversations with polite people who can read social cues may be yellow or red to conversations with people who are kinda obnoxious

      1. Worldwalker*

        Yeah … it’s not granular enough. I enjoy light chat with random people at cons, but sometimes there’s a person who really, really wants to expound on his conspiracy/time-travel/metaphysical theory who latches on to me and will. not. shut. up. The colored dots seem like a good idea, but I can see a green one attracting someone like that.

    3. Jenesis*

      This is a nice idea in theory! But at the last con I attended, my badge just Would. Not. Stay. flipped right-side out, even after I kept trying to flip it back.

      I can imagine myself being so anxious about whether the “right side” of my badge was showing that I’d just set both sides to yellow and resign myself to never talking to anyone.

      1. Worldwalker*

        Now there’s something I should add to my Convention Survival Kits — a little clip to make your badge stay put. Back when I started going to cons, badges were the pin-on type and this wasn’t an issue. Now they’re generally on lanyards, they all seem to be ashamed to show their faces and flip over no matter what you do.

        1. NotBatman*

          I attend the same conference every year — in 2022, they switched lanyard types and introduced this flipping issue. Apparently so many nerds complained to the help desk, they made an announcement on the third day that “We’ll bring back the old lanyards for next year. Stop telling us these lanyards suck, we already know.” So there are good lanyards and bad lanyards — the ones that clip to the badge in two places are infinitely superior to the ones that only clip in one.

          To circle back, I love the idea of those sticker types. I was recently at a conference where the wallflowers were six deep, and it was so hard to know who would love to talk but was just shy vs. who was recharging social batteries and didn’t want small talk.

      2. Nightengale*

        the model I know (created by The Autistic Community tm) is you get a second plastic badge holder thing with 3 colored cards in it
        and then the card you want is the only one displayed

  22. kastanie22*

    LW1, if you’re not familiar with the concept of Geek Social Fallacies, I highly recommend you to read some (older but still relevant) Captain Awkward posts on that topic (link: https://captainawkward.com/2015/11/03/784-the-geek-social-fallacy-host-missing-stair-guest-relationship/). Allison’s answer is great but I think especially in nerdy circles there can sometimes be a difficult extra layer of “we all remember how it was to be excluded as kids/teenagers and that’s why we must never exclude someone. I know you are concerned about Alex being hurt and feel unwelcome at your events but maybe also think about how many people might feel uncomfortable and unwelcome because of Alex and end up not showing up at an event they too deserve to feel welcome and safe at.

    1. Worldwalker*

      Especially for us older geeks, we remember being ostracized in school because we liked books, or Star Trek, or D&D, or whatever. We remember BADD picketing our favorite game store. We remember being mocked with “oh, you like that Buck Rogers stuff, heh heh heh.” (that’s the reason I, and many older fen, hate the term “SciFi” — that was always part of the mockery, instead of “science fiction” or “SF”) I used to live for SF conventions because those brief weekends were the only time in my life that I could be me instead of pretending to be a mundane so the derision would stop, or at least be reduced some.

      But also, back then, fandom was smaller and tighter knit; everyone didn’t quite know everyone, but in your local area, at least, you’d at least have met most of them. If you didn’t know someone, you still probably had mutual acquaintances. This was long before “nerd chic.” In pretty much any fandom (romance may be the exception; that genre has always been popular) the people who went to conventions were pretty deep in the fandom, and were so happy to have a space where they could be with people like themselves that they didn’t dare risk losing it. (not that there weren’t people with powerful protectors who weren’t constrained by this, but that’s another matter) So, in general, there were fewer people who couldn’t or wouldn’t act like civilized human beings.

      Overall, I like the changes. I like that so many more people are enjoying what I love, and telling me about the things that they love so I can enjoy them too. But that broadening of the fan base means a wider range of people involved. For one thing, we don’t all have mutual acquaintances anymore. That removes some of the social control and peer pressure that used to exist. So, unfortunately, the “we welcome everyone” bit doesn’t work anymore, because while people formerly generally behaved themselves (though some certainly didn’t; I’m thinking of an individual at Arisia about 25 years ago) for the reasons mentioned, a lot of those don’t apply anymore.

      First Fandom has died of old age (Harry, how I miss you!) and it’s a different scene now. Maybe it’s better; I’m not sure. But we can’t act as if the people around us are who they would have been back in the day. They’re not. They’re more like the general population than our specific sub-set of nerdity. And we can’t forget that for nostalgia’s sake.

      1. Six Feldspar*

        It’s also an issue of scale. Individual fandoms vary in size but the ones that are large enough to support cons are in the hundreds up to hundreds of *thousands*, and you can’t manage the problems of a city with the methods that worked fine for a village.

      2. Jackalope*

        An aside, but what does BADD stand for? All I could find online was Bikers Against Drunk Drivers and that doesn’t make sense in this context.

  23. Ganymede II*

    For LW1, you may want to read on Geek Social Fallacies. We want geeky and fandom-y events to be inclusive and friendly, but sometimes that means being extra strict on members who make the events un-social and un-friendly for most attendees.

    Captain Awkward has a whole lot of advice on this too.

  24. Too Late*

    LW#3 – do you work at my old workplace, with my old colleague? Who had a very similar name. We were a multi-disciplinary team of professionals working together in a particular field of practice. Julie (I’ll use the name used in your question!!) had been difficult in every team she had ever been in. She attempted to micromanage colleagues, direct their activities and behaviour – she was not a team lead nor in any way responsible for these colleague. She had been moved from team to team by management, leaving destroyed teams in her wake. Eventually she hit our team. We mostly stood up to her – but she caused chaos and tension. Management decided to get in a team relations expert – who was not any more expert than at least three of the professionals on the team. Julie was present. The first session made no progress. No one would talk. We had all been victims of retribution at various times. We had a lunch break. Facilitator talked to us all individually – it was very clear that there was an issue, that we knew what the issue was, and that we were refusing to talk about the issue. No one would talk individually either. Finally, one person said “We need to talk about the elephant in the room.” and turned and addressed Julie directly with the issues. Julie stormed out of the room. We all started talking about the issues. Facilitator told us we shouldn’t create a witch hunt!!! There was no resolution, no coaching for Julie, no management of her. She continued to micromanage and bully people, making up lies to report them. It was a hot mess!! I left years ago and I hear through the grapevine that she’s still doing it!

    1. Anon Just for This*

      I’ve been working in government for 7 years and one of the biggest problems I’ve seen where I am – across more than one ministry – is a general unwillingness to intervene when someone in management sucks. A while back, I found myself in a situation with a new manager lead on a project, who was managing for the first time. Without getting into detail, she made the entire team miserable right away, from micromanagement and making things really uncomfortable if people disagreed with her. Then being confused about why nobody talked in meetings anymore. (“Oh, I don’t have a strong opinion about that” became my go-to response).

      Unfortunately, from some conversations I did have, there didn’t seem to be any willingness for anyone to step in and, like, tell her that her way of doing things was causing problems. The response was, essentially, that different managers have different approaches. Sure, but if a manager’s approach means that most of their project team quit (true story!), maybe that’s worth a conversation. So I left and am much happier.

  25. Grey Coder*

    LW3: The idea of a three day workshop to “rebuild working relationships” sounds like purgatory to me. Can you ask for it to address working practices instead? If they don’t want to manage Julie to improve, you might be able to change processes enough that she becomes mostly irrelevant. If you focus on your actual compliance activities and what you need for that, senior management can’t push back much.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      The title of this workshop is deeply alarming to me, and I would want a full itinerary before I could be persuaded that it wasn’t some form of hamfisted therapy session. I think a focus on the processes and training would be infinitely preferable to that, and may do some good in streamlining some of the issues they’re having. I think some communication along the lines of “since the relationships are fine, but the issues are with x, y and z, can we use the time in this workshop to focus on processes and compliance instead?

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        Or even that the reason that the relationships aren’t fine is because of issues around processes, so can we focus on the practicalities of how we work together?

        1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

          Or frame it as, like, there being a disconnect with expectations and processes and that clarifying these things would get everyone on the same page and working towards the same goals. When there isn’t a common understanding of the objectives, of course there’s going to be tension.

  26. Jenesis*

    Is it weird that I honestly don’t see a problem with the student in LW#4 at all?

    It’s a community college; people are generally expected to be responsible for themselves as adults and you get out of class what you put in. There will be people who show up to class in pajamas, sleep through class, screw around on their phone or social media while in class. As long as they aren’t actively being disruptive, what they do is their own business. I wouldn’t expect any of them to believe this is acceptable behavior in the workplace.

    If I saw a PornHub logo on another student’s laptop I’d probably think “Fascinating; didn’t really need to know that” but I also assume that the majority of young adult allosexuals have gone looking on the internet for porn at some point, so I wouldn’t exactly be scandalized by it.

    1. Hyaline*

      Yeah, as long as the sticker isn’t showing any of the site’s content it’s really no big deal. If it does have some, ah, specialized content, it’s disruptive and a problem to expose people to it non-consensually, but the site name itself isn’t really an issue.

      1. NotBatman*

        Yeah, I feel like the social norms for college students are so relaxed that it’s a non-issue. One of my students has a laptop sticker with a drawing of a rainbow coming out of a man’s anus, and it makes me blink every time I see it, but that’s my problem not his. I had a FCK H8 (“f*ck hate”) sticker on my computer when I was in college, and simply stuck a plain laptop cover over it when I was presenting in class or at my internship.

      2. NMitford*

        I have a sticker for Biscuits & Porn in Nags Head, NC, on my laptop, and it’s definitely gotten some looks. It’s like the mud flap woman and the company logo, so not necessarily explicit.

        If you don’t know…. it’s a convenience store attached to a gas station. They serve really good biscuits and had a robust selection of girlie magazines as well. People started calling the place Biscuits & Porn and, eventually, the store leaned into the name and made it official. If you’re ever in the Outer Banks stop by one morning for a biscuit. They’re awesome.

    2. HigherEd Boundaries*

      It’s also missing the whole Freedom of Expression part. If the student is at a Community College, they most likely are at a public institution. Freedom of Expression would protect the sticker, and the school (which would be viewed as an extension of the government) cannot infringe on their right to express themself with a PornHub sticker.

    3. amoeba*

      I mean, that’s pretty much Alison’s advice, so no, not weird! Although I’d definitely be… questioning their judgement a bit, not because they apparently visit pornhub (as you said – a lot of people do!) but because they chose to basically advertise for it with a sticker. Or I’d assume it’s ironic or whatever, no idea – depends on the person, probably!

    4. Nodramalama*

      Yeah I wouldn’t care at all. People at my uni literally had sex in the library. I don’t care about a porn logo

    5. stacers*

      This was exactly my thought, too. I’m old, but I don’t think I would think twice about it if I were, say, guest lecturing in the class, for example.

      I don’t even know what you would say to the student about it (if it’s just the logo, I mean; Alison’s thoughts were spot-on if it included content)? I can imagine what I would do if an instructor said something to me about my ‘choices’ when I was that age …

      1. NotBatman*

        I agree that it shows a lack of judgment on the student’s part (like, that’s one heck of a first impression). But students wear stupid/profane/sexist t-shirts all the time, and that’s their prerogative.

    6. Kelly L.*

      Yeah, it’s a student. If it were a faculty or staff member it would be different. But on a student’s laptop it’s just “ok, you’re edgy, good for you” lol.

    7. Donkey Hotey*

      Exactly. If it was a professor with that sticker, it’d be a problem. A student? Either they are a consumer or quite frankly, they could be a content provider, which could be how they’re paying for college.

    8. Strive to Excel*

      The flipside of this is that community college is a good place to learn what acceptable norms for adult behavior either. Having a trusted adult pull you aside and say “that is not a workplace acceptable sticker unless you happen to *work* for PornHub” can prevent them from similar faux pas in future.

      1. Beebs*

        It’s not really a faux pas, though. The student just has their computer out in a classroom–there are standards for classroom behavior but they don’t match workplace standards. No one is pulling students aside and telling them flip flops or PJ bottoms aren’t appropriate workplace attire–I don’t see (non-explicit) stickers being any different.

    9. Tally miss*

      I actually think the student should be spoken to but on a “you may be aware of this, but just want to support you” way because we are talking about college students not all who understand that respecting boundaries is important.

      The OP can mention seeing the sticker and reiterate whatever most relevant college policy applies because the student should know that if people ask her or demand to know what her porn channel is, she’s allowed to shut them down and the college will support her because she is not asking for it with the sticker.

      The sticker may be advertising her job or she may just think it is cool, but in either case, she is not obligated to accept harassment because of the sticker.

    10. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      College is not a professional environment, it is also where they live and socialize. They aren’t bringing in a separate “work laptop”. This is a blurry line between public and home.

      Colleges often have events/fairs etc specifically on safe sex, sexuality, etc. Where they give away toys and other stuff. Quite often they get donations from sex positive companies and give away stickers etc. as an advertising thing. Industry swag. It would be a really odd thing to tell students they could not use the stickers given to them at a college event. Not saying Porn Hub specifically, but other sex associated companies have done this for sure.

      Students collect laptop stickers as a way both to express themselves and to identify their computer .

  27. Pibble*

    LW 1, let’s assume that Alex’s issues are entirely neurodivergence. Imagine for a moment that you thought you were doing the right thing socializing with people who enjoy a shared interest, only to find out that a whole group of people has been plotting behind your back because they find your behavior unacceptable, but instead of telling you, they make whoever draws the metaphorical short straw follow you around and try to control what you do. In other words, don’t assign Alex a babysitter – it will only heighten his feelings of rejection when he finds out.

    If the problem is neurodivergence alone, give him very clear, concrete guidelines. (Suuuuper concrete. More concrete than you think they should be. So concrete you’re worried about being rude.) If he’s unable to abide by the guidelines, either due to a level of neurodivergence that requires an aide or due to a combination of neurodivergence and creepiness, you have a clear and concrete reason to kick him out or require him to attend virtually. If he feels he would benefit from an aide to help him pick up on social cues and remind him to follow your guidelines, that’s fine, but it should be his choice and with his full knowledge.

  28. catdog*

    #2 reminded me of a thing that happened to me in the early days of Covid…

    I was interviewing for an assistant over video call, sipping my mug of tea throughout. At the end of the interview I realized I had been drinking out of a mug that said ‘I CAN’T COME IN TODAY SO F*CK OFF’ on it. All I could do was hope the candidate had not noticed, or the resolution of the video was not high enough for her to read it.

    That candidate was hired in the end, and she confirmed that yes, she had noticed.

    2. Bast*

      I’d love to work for someone who so clearly had a sense of humor though! I like a bit of personality.

    4. Former Admin Turned PM*

      I am very conscious of what mugs I used when I could be seen. “Who are these kids and why are they calling me ‘Mom”” and “Fifty- the ultimate F-Word” are just for weekends at home. My innocuous mugs do get a fair amount of attention by friends who followed my mug-of-the-day streak on IG back in the day, though, because I have so many.

      I gave my husband a travel mug for Christmas that has a bootleg Jack Skellington on it and said “Nightmare Before Coffee” on one side and “Have a nice cup of **ckoffee” on the other. He very consciously uses for his golf outings, but not his teaching days.

    5. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      Coincidentally, I’m wearing a shirt that says “women don’t owe you sh!t” and forgot I would be on camera for several meetings today. I had to adjust my camera angle to not show the writing rather than change my shirt. It’s one of my favorite shirts and makes me happy on a Friday when most of my colleagues can leave early to start their holiday weekend! lol

  29. Nuro*

    With LW#1, I might be being over cautious but with ‘but ask that you not approach kids you don’t know’ I’d maybe skip the ‘you don’t know.’

    If he’s got the type of nurodiversity I’m getting the impression he does, you run the risk of him thinking it’s acceptable to talk to kids he recognises from last year.

    I’m reasoning this from my own low spectrum diversity. While these days, I’d know that means ‘do not talking to any strangers kids’ there was a point when I was a teenager that any soft language around social situations was taken as like, a caviate in a binding social contract.
    But I also didn’t quite have the skills yet to clock someone else’s interiority to, for example, figure out that me recognising someone from a con last year doesn’t mean they know me.
    Like I said maybe over cautious but I figured I’d put it on the table!

    1. Pibble*

      I agree, if there’s going to be any softening of the “don’t talk to kids” rule, it should be “unless they start the conversation” not “kids you don’t know”.

  30. SchwaDeVivre*

    I have been staff for fan-run conventions from 100 to 10,000 attendees for over 15 years. For most of that time, I was on or running the security team, which is often consulted or responsible when issues like LW1’s arise. I also have been con chair, vice chair, and founded a con for a small fandom, and so I understand how this issue feel different in a small fandom, especially in the case where you run the only convention for that fandom. Apologies for the incoming wall of text.

    First, you need to make sure there is a Code of Conduct for all attendees (and staff and guests). You don’t need to make anyone sign anything, just make sure it’s available along with your other policies on your website. We also had a specific anti-harassment policy, which can be helpful here. You should make sure you write in some sort of Rule Zero (“the decisions of the con chair regarding rules are final”) that means you can nip “but the rules say X” in the bud. (It’s your event, so you don’t strictly need this. But it can be helpful to have when someone tries to follow the letter and not the spirit of your policies.)

    Next, if you have never had to remove someone from the con before, you should figure out how that will work. Don’t attach a ton of process (and don’t make it a vote), but you should have a procedure. For a small con, I recommend something like “the con chair or vice chair must approve removing any attendee”. You should also make sure you write an incident report (a narrative account of what happened and list of who was involved) for future reference. (Note that this is different than banning someone! Instituting a temporary or permanent ban shouldn’t happen during the con. Let the ConComm or board figure that out during the planning year instead.)

    Lastly, for Alex in particular. If this is a small enough community where you have direct communication with him, and you can choose to reach out ahead of time and outline his past behavior (you can use specific instances but do not let him get hung up on them), point out how it violates your policies, and inform him that you expect him to follow the policies or he will be removed from the event. If you do not feel like reaching out, that’s all right as well. If you need to give him a warning during the event, make sure you’re clear about what will happen if you see the behavior again. (In my opinion — and I’m not often of this opinion — I think Alison’s script is not cut-and-dry enough. Be very clear and don’t mince words. Not because Alex is neurodiverse, but because you are giving a final warning.)

    This will be uncomfortable, for you and him. And if you’ve never removed someone from the event, it feels like a drastic step to take. Especially in a small fandom where it’s easy to know a lot about your fellow fans, it’s easy to start justifying why someone is acting in a specific way, and it’s easy to get scared about how news will travel. But that’s why having the policies in place is important — they back you up and prompt you to care about someone’s behavior and its effect on other attendees, without requiring you to judge the underlying cause. Maybe it’s genuine lack of understanding, maybe it’s a lack of coffee, maybe the person got double-dog-dared to talk to someone about your fandom for 1 hour straight. Doesn’t matter if it’s having a bad effect on your attendees. It’s *your* event — you’re both in control and responsible for how it turns out, so make the choices that represent how you want the event to go for your attendeeship as a whole.

    Remember, your job is to put on a great event for your attendees, not to help people build good coping mechanisms. Do whatever you gotta do, as staff, to make that magic happen. Good luck!

    1. Orv*

      This is all great advice, and highlights something I’ve been saying for a while — newer, smaller cons should reach out to people at older conventions for advice. There’s a HUGE amount of institutional knowledge at any successful convention, and you don’t want to have to learn it all on your own.

  31. Harper the Other One*

    OP#1, I second the advice given above about being very blunt and specific with Alex, and I also like the idea of the attendee code of conduct. But impulse control about something a neurodivergent person is passionate about can be a huge challenge. It’s not as easy as saying “well he can control himself at work” – he probably doesn’t LOVE work the way he loves this fandom!

    You could reach out to any local organizations that support neurodivergent folks for a volunteer aid to attend. Because it won’t be someone interested in your fandom you won’t have to feel bad about them missing out on the event, and Alex will probably enjoy telling someone all about his topic of interest.

    That said, I also second the advice above not to let neurodivergence become an excuse for bad behaviour. If you set the terms and he still makes people uncomfortable, make sure he knows that it will be his responsibility to present a plausible plan for managing his social interactions before he can attend again.

  32. Melissa*

    The beverages thing is so interesting— as Alison said, it’s really a cultural thing that we only approve of water. Even in the televised presidential debates! We take for granted that they will have a clear water bottle up there. Anything else would look jarringly casual.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      I think it’s less weird than the letter/response makes it seem. The premise of water=ok is because all humans need water to function. If it’s at a speaking gig too, water helps with not coughing from talking so much, etc. It’s seen as part of the meeting/presentation/whatever that it’s normal to potentially need water.
      Humans don’t necessarily need soda or other beverages to function. So the whole “water is fine but something else isn’t” thing is an extension of “be focused on the meeting/presentation/what you’re doing”. So having a soda or fruit punch or whatever other drink in whatever packaging is viewed as a distraction – or perhaps focusing on personal food and drink, rather than focusing on the task at hand. I’m not saying it should be that way necessarily, but I think that’s where it’s coming from.

      1. Orv*

        There’s also this cultural thing in the US that coffee or sweet iced tea (depending on the part of the country you’re in) is not only acceptable, but often expected and provided at meetings.

  33. Jolene*

    LW#1, after speaking bluntly to Alex and laying out clear expectations, I think it’s also important that someone keeps an eye on him discreetly and intervenes if they notice Alex is doing the same thing again. Also, if he ignores or forgets the warning, he shouldn’t be allowed to physically attend the conference again.

    1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      yes it has to be one more strike and he’s out, it’s been going on for too long already.

  34. rebelwithmouseyhair*

    This is a mostly mother-daughter event and women need to feel comfortable. Maybe you could include in the attendees’ welcome pack a leaflet explaining what you can do if anyone makes you uncomfortable, and how to help if you understand that someone else is uncomfortable. This might mean ordering a Squirmers’ Special at the bar, so staff know that you need help, and come to rescue you, or using some other safe word loudly if you’re too far from a bar. The same info can be posted in the women’s toilets and in bedrooms if people stay overnight.
    The first time I read about such measures, I thought, wow, how come it’s taken us this long to figure this thing out? Why do such measures not exist in all bars nightclubs and events? Just last night there was a guy making me very uncomfortable, when I was out dancing with friends (my partner was sitting drinking with other friends). I would have been so reassured to know that I could ask for help without having to explain and justify and spell stuff out to whoever I might have asked.

  35. Hyaline*

    RE LW1, while I appreciate that the holy and untouchable rule of social engagement is “don’t make people uncomfortable and those who do are Bad,” in my opinion, in public spaces like a con is, we can’t take action solely for the reactions people have to a person, but for the person’s actual actions. It sounds like Alex is mostly just annoying; none of the actions he’s taken sound threatening or alarming in and of themselves. People are using the terminology “he’s making me uncomfortable” but that discomfort could be stemming not from his actions, per se, but from the social discomfort of wanting to disengage and being unable to. Or maybe he is a total creep, IDK, but it sounds like he hasn’t crossed any hard and fast behavioral boundaries, he’s just crossed social norm boundaries. So you have to set a boundary for him to cross before you can claim he’s crossing boundaries.

    The problem here is that it seems no one has ever been firm and blunt with Alex. People have attempted to buffer his effects, but no one has set firm limits on his interactions. To wholesale decide he needs to be banned “because he makes people uncomfortable” but he hasn’t actually broken rules, codes of conduct*, or disregarded explicit instructions is pretty cruel, actually? While such a conversation might be awkward, it’s necessary and probably welcome in the end in order to give him firm boundaries. If it’s not welcomed or at least accepted, Alex may decide on his own to bow out, or if his response is inappropriate, now there’s grounds to ban him. But you have to try the conversation first. Be firm and be complete, and make moderators, tour guides, and others aware that they can enforce rules (like not dominating panel Q&A time or being respectfully quiet on tours) with everyone.

    *Do you have a code of conduct? Because if you do, it’s helpful to know what part of it Alex would be violating if he disregards your boundary-setting talk (and if you don’t have one, I would add one!). Often cons will have a section with “a safe and welcoming environment for everyone, and those creating an unwelcoming or unsafe environment will be removed” kind of language. You want, for the health of the whole community, to be able to firmly and fairly enforce the code of conduct, not just have a one-time “ban Alex” ruling.

    1. Sonia*

      This part makes me think that Alex’ actions are not OK and it’s not just about how others react to him:

      “Absolutely nothing untoward happened and all the children were with their mothers, but the girls involved didn’t wish to engage in conversation and their mothers had a hard time ending the conversations with Alex.

      Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her.”

      As I understand it, the boundaries have been stated to him, but he didn’t respect them.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        The issue is that the boundaries sound like they were stated in neurotypical terms while Alex sounds like a super literal case. If you tell him not to call or text AND he’s been told to apologise when he upsets someone he won’t be able to parse which social rule to follow, and came up with mailing because that’s neither calling nor texting. Having a “hard time” ending the conversation probably means they had to be direct because he wasn’t getting the soft no’s we expect everyone to understand. To be clear, it’s not other people’s problem that Alex can’t parse soft no’s and how to make exceptions to previous rules, so he needs to figure out a way to function without making other people uncomfortable, but it’s entirely possible he’s willing to do it. Whether he’s capable of doing it, with or without a behavioural aide, or coaching or without experiencing some bans and losses, is another question.

        1. Orv*

          My experience is you can never be literal or thorough enough for someone like that to stop finding loopholes, unfortunately. I just imagine a situation where you tell him “don’t call, text, or mail this person” and he sends a flower delivery or orders them a pizza instead. I’ve seen it happen.

    2. Emily (not a bot)*

      It’s hard for me to get a read on this, and for sure they should try a direct conversation. But banning for people for being consistently annoying can be entirely appropriate, depending on what kind of group or event you’re running. A convention that only works via lots of volunteer labor and also only works if attendees feel comfortable shouldn’t have that high of a bar for banning people. They’re not denying him access to work, or to crucial services of any sort.

      I went through this with a virtual group I helped run. We initially did a lot “where in the code of conduct are we allowed to ban this person?”, and it was ultimately a huge time and morale suck from our all-volunteer crew. If someone is making people feel bad and taking up a lot of time and energy, that’s a problem that organizers have both the right and the responsibility to fix.

      1. Hyaline*

        Well, I think that’s a question of a writing a code of conduct that allows for good judgment, you know? The “safe and welcoming environment” language I’ve frequently seen covers all manner of things, and someone who is persistently making people feel unwelcome–for whatever reason–can fall under that. I think it’s helpful to be able to explain your actions to the community using standards rules that can be applied if the situation recurs in different variations–it’s clear it’s not personal and that you’re consistent and proactive (not just reactive to every situation that may arise).

    3. Nodramalama*

      I think refusing to stop talking to someone and then sending them gifts after being told to stop contacting them is alarming at best.

  36. Apex Mountain*

    If Alex is making people uncomfortable to the point that he was previously harassing one of this year’s speakers, that seems to require a little more than just having a few people hovering around him to watch

    If he’s intelligent enough to be successful at his high level career he should be able to control his behavior or if not please do not invite him.

  37. Friday Frieda*

    LW1 – Alex is a predator and the other attendees should not be subject to his inappropriate behavior. Ban him for good and get a restraining order. His behavior will escalate. I am willing to bet he will be in the news for some shady stuff within the next few years.

    1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      That’s really a leap of near cosmic distances. You do not get restraining orders that easily for starters (I can’t get one against an ACTUAL stalker) and to jump to legal action before even trying setting boundaries is unprofessional.

    2. Zephy*

      Good job buddy, this is the most uncharitable read of the situation possible.

      Men can be awkward without being dangerous. I agree Alex needs to behave differently or not attend but I do not think, let me check my notes here, “talking to women” is a violent act or precursor to one.

      1. dude, who moved my cheese?*

        > Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her.

        Sorry but this is wild!!!

        1. Apex Mountain*

          Yes, for me this moves it from “awkward but well meaning guy” to “creep who needs to control his behavior”

      2. Jennifer Strange*

        Talking to women isn’t a violent act, but continuing to message someone after being told repeatedly to stop AND then sending items to that person’s home is certainly beyond “awkward”.

      3. jasmine*

        When men are awkward, typically people leave the convo with the feeling “that was awkward” not “that felt creepy”

        1. Jennifer Strange*

          This. I’ve had conversations with men that were awkward and conversations with men that were creepy. I know the difference.

        2. Meep*

          I love the discourse right now around the male loneliness epidemic and how 45% of men between the ages of 25-45 refuse to talk to women, where men don’t want to approach women because then they will be called “creeps”. My dude, the only reason you would be called such is if you are, in fact, being an absolute creep.

          1. Dahlia*

            I honestly don’t think that’s true all the time.

            There’s a creator I follow on tiktok who’s been talking a lot lately about the common misconceptions around human trafficking, like white women who post very publicly about how they and their three kids were nearly trafficked from a Walmart parking lot despite the fact that almost certainly did not happen because that’s now how trafficking works.

            When you look into it a little more, a great deal of the time all a man had to do to creep them out was be near them and not be white.

  38. Yup*

    My issue with #4 and the PornHub sticker is that the site is illegally targeting kids/teens through the integration of video games and getting away with it. I don’t know that this is widely known, but it *is* happening and it’s problematic to be in a classroom looking at a logo like this–especially when it’s been put on a laptop on purpose for other people to see.

    Yes, uni students will express themselves in ways that rock the boat or push back on key topics. That’s what uni is for and that is the place to do it. But some issues can overtly or otherwise hurt others in the classroom and there needs to be some line drawn. If I were a parent in the class I may be really uncomfortable seeing PornHub glowing in my face knowing I was trying to protect my teens online from predators like that.

    1. Yup*

      To be clear: Integrating video games on platforms kids/teens use, not on the PornHub site itself.

    2. Czhorat*

      College students are usually 18 or older; 17 at the youngest. This isn’t a sign of targeting innocent youth.

        1. Czhorat*

          The impact is all on young adults, not children.

          Adults – even young ones – are allowed to know that porn exists.

        2. nodramalama*

          the student isn’t watching porn. young adults know porn exists. they most likely watch porn.

    3. Donkey Hotey*

      Hold on. How is a sticker “glowing in your face”?

      The student isn’t watching porn in class. It is one sticker in a sea of stuff covered by stickers. Laptops, water bottles, notebooks. I for one am not volunteering anyone to be the sticker police.

    4. Jeanine*

      Wow, so again having a sticker like that really affects no one. Just ignore it if you don’t like it.

  39. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    LW1 – As a neurospicy woman who’s encountered his behaviour in many an environment it’s time for a clear setting boundaries talk.
    ‘You do not attempt to contact someone/send them gifts if they’ve told you to piss off’ is basic as is ‘sum up your conversation in 3 sentences and if people are not turning to face you/engaging and asking you questions then consider the conversation over’ is another. That last one is one I have to use to stop myself from giving people a 2 hour improv lecture on this week’s hyperfixation.

    If he truly cannot understand these rules, or tries to argue them then he can’t be there. Don’t put the emotional labour of sheparding this guy onto someone else because he will not get to learn important skills on how to act in society without creeping others the heck out.

    Hard-won those skills are they are very valuable.

    Also this link is golden:

    https://captainawkward.com/2012/08/11/the-c-word/

  40. ReallyBadPerson*

    If Alex is “low support needs” in his high level career, but behaves like this toward women in social settings, he is an entitled ass.

    1. Hyaline*

      Not necessarily? His career may let him avoid most unscripted social interaction. If your argument was “he’s fine at men’s only pickleball conventions but weird here” I’d see your point but we could be comparing apples to Clydesdales here.

      1. Meep*

        I am in the middle of your two points. (Well, except for Alex is an entitled ass. I agree with that one.)

        A lot of loud, overtalkative behavior is usually supported in high-level careers. The more a man speaks, the more intelligent he comes off. Even if a lot of what he is saying is pure nonsense. Alex probably gets away with his behavior a whole lot better at his job, because the corporate world promotes high-functioning ND men as somehow geniuses (see: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and other high-powered entitled asses).

        However, women are expected to speak less and listen to, uninterrupted men – which he is fully taking advantage of whether he knows it or not. Where the issue lies is he has been in this female-centered space long enough to be told repeatedly and to KNOW better how to act in this space. He is, really at this point, willfully choosing not to.

  41. 123*

    LW1: I would also consider what you would do if Alex wasn’t neurodivergent. Obviously making some accommodations for that is inclusive and a good course of action, but that doesn’t mean making it a blanket rule that he is free from any consequences for his behaviour.

    I’d also be curious to know if most of these complaints and his harassing behaviours came from women and children because that brings it to another level of problems.

    Also a lot of comments are saying he’s just annoying but you can’t gloss over the fact he was banned from a social media group for harassing a woman repeatedly including texts AND mailing things to her home address. That goes beyond just “annoying”, that’s blantant harassment and disregard for boundaries. Her experience at the event and feeling safe should matter just as much as his.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      It was stated that majority of the attendees are women and children so it’s not as easy to come to this conclusion “I’d also be curious to know if most of these complaints and his harassing behaviours came from women and children because that brings it to another level of problems.” as it would otherwise be because of the already skewed nature of the event.

  42. JelloStaples*

    It seems that Alex takes feedback and redirection about specific situations well and responds—as part of being neurodivergent (I assume it can be attributed to this?), it sounds like he has trouble applying on situation to other situations. So, I think Alison’s suggestion of an overall request may result in what you need.

  43. Kaleb*

    This is not feasible for all events, and can involve a lot of explaining when it first gets implemented. However: in the queer spaces I frequent the most, there are a lot of neurodivergent folks, anxious folks, folks with trauma, etc. And one of the best practices I’ve ever seen was the use of pins or other visual indicators for everyone indicating the degree to which that person is currently up for human interaction. This allows people who might actually want to engage but have a hard time starting interactions to indicate non-verbally that they would love to have people initiate conversations, and allows people who are just there to stand in a corner and people-watch to be left alone. There are all sorts of nuances in between (in these spaces, for instance, we also differentiated between ‘I would be thrilled to be hit on right now’ and ‘I don’t want to be hit on but would love to talk about my latest special interest.) As an autistic person with social anxiety, this gave me some of the best and most accessible social spaces I’ve ever been in (with the caveat that organizers need to be firm on enforcement; no matter what measures you put in place, some people will still want to push the boundaries.)

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah, there are so many ways to set up more neurodivergent friendly spaces and activities, and even if it doesn’t work out with Alex, it’ll be good for the other ND attendees. For this problem in particular I might consider “no chatting” quiet zones to cut down on noise as well as more structured discussion spaces where people show up deliberately to talk in groups and possibly use timers and turn taking.

  44. Czech Mate*

    LW 4 – the only time I’ve addressed things like this with students is when the person’s first language isn’t English and they’ve recently arrived to the country, in which case it’s possible that they don’t know what the thing means. My husband always loves to talk about an international student he knew in grad school who always wore a D.A.R.E. shirt. When he asked her about it, he realized she didn’t know about Drug Abuse Resistance Education–she just saw it in a thrift shop and thought it was like “DARE to dream!” or something like that. Something similar came up when I worked at an ESL school and a kid showed up with a shirt that said “Swallow.” If I remember right, he looked up the word and some pictures of pretty birds came up, so he thought it was okay.

    1. Bast*

      If you think about it, we do the same thing. People get tattoos in a language they don’t understand, and what they are told means, “Faith” or “Hope” or whatever actually means “BBQ Grill” or something. We hosted an international student where (thankfully) it was popular to get shirts with English phrases on them rather than tattoos. It didn’t really matter what the shirt said, just that the phrase was English made it popular. She had one shirt with a picture of a beautiful blue flower on it with the phrase “SEND HELP” right above it, and another that said, “SUCK IT” in big block letters above a picture of puppies in a basket. She had no clue what the shirts meant, but assumed they were some English catch phrases.

      For the pornhub sticker, I am chalking it up to be edgy and college vibes. I remember multiple kids who had those sorts of stickers, playboy, the playboy bunny, pornhub, etc throughout high school and college. It was very much, “I dare you to say anything, look how edgy I am” to all the teachers/professors.

  45. EA*

    I drink coffee throughout the day, and sometimes I consider if my mugs are unprofessional! I have one with pics of kids in my family and another that says something like “Best Aunt Ever”, and I’ve wondered whether they are too corny to be seen on a work Zoom call.

    3. Jeanine*

      It doesn’t matter at all what mug you use. Worrying about how those look is a waste of time and energy.

  46. Nonsense*

    OP 1, in addition to everyone else’s good advice, I want to point out two more things: 1) You actually know Alex’s name. How other attendees can you name? Not many, I’d guess, especially when you subtract out panelists and booths. You only know Alex’s name because of repeated bad behavior. That’s not good. 2) He has made multiple women and young girls so uncomfortable they actually complained. Do you understand just how rare that still is? How many women still won’t report uncomfortable encounters because it’ll just get shrugged off as a man being “too enthusiastic” or “can’t read social cues”? For every complaint you have against him you need to realize that at least 15 women didn’t speak up.

    This is where the Tolerance Paradox comes into play. In order to make this con a safe place for your target audience, you cannot allow those who bring harm to them. No excuses.

    1. Dek*

      I wouldn’t be too sure about #1. My Dad helps put together a convention/gathering most years. It’s a group from all over, folks sometimes fly in internationally, it’s got panels and discussions and all. I think he probably knew the name of most of the attendees, even before he was tapped to help with the organization.

      If it’s a smaller sort of community (which seems likely if there’s only ONE cis guy), then knowing his name doesn’t mean anything. Especially if he’s the only guy.

      1. Nonsense*

        Ok, fine, cavet to point 1: do they know his name because he’s the only man or do they know his name because of his reputation?

        1. e271828*

          Guarantee you there is a whisper network of mothers and girls warning each other about this guy by name already. “Oh, you want to go to $Con? It’s fun but watch out for Alex. He’s this guy—yeah, a guy—who keeps showing up and following people around.”

  47. LCH*

    as i was reading #1, i also thought maybe just tell him directly to avoid kids and keep the convos short. set himself a timer if needed (also landed on 5 min). depending on his brand of neurodivergence, he might appreciate this sort of direct instruction.

  48. HonorBox*

    OP3 – Talk to upper-level management. You don’t need to repair relationships. They need to ensure Julie is able to do her job and not run afoul of rules and regulations. I’d say something like this: “I’m concerned about the three day workshop. By all accounts, our team has a good working relationship. The concern that was raised by my coworker was about the lack of compliance and the potential harm that does to our agency. We’re being asked to spend three days rebuilding relationships that aren’t broken. Unless the agenda includes specific instruction about the problems that exist related to compliance, I’m not sure how the workshop will change an outcome that needs to be changed. Is there a better way to address the lack of understanding about what we do and how we do it, because that’s the crux of the issue.”

  49. CommanderBanana*

    Why are you prioritizing the comfort of one (male) attendee at the expense of so many other (female and minor female) attendees?

    1. CityMouse*

      It’s incredibly common for women to be told to ignore their comfort and safety for men’s behavior, too. The fact that this involves kids too makes this even more egregious.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        I think the LW, while their intentions are good, is blinded by what Captain Awkward would call Geek Social Fallacies and the idea that ‘inclusion’ somehow means tolerating crap behavior (yes, even crap behavior from neurodivergent people is crap behavior!). I have no doubt that some conference attendees have already bailed rather than deal with someone whose behavior, honestly, has crossed the line from harassment and is now bordering on stalking.

        1. Orv*

          I think it’s not just geek social fallacies, but also the idea that disability accommodations are good, and this is a disability, therefore we must accommodate it.

        1. e271828*

          More than a smidgeon.

          The con should have rotating shifts of volunteers to monitor Alex! The con should find a behavioral aide just for Alex for the con! The con should very carefully and specifically spell out to Alex personally exactly what levels of social engagement are acceptable! The con should feel sorry for poor Alex!

          It must be an awesome fandom if they’re still getting attendees in spite of Alex.

    2. H.Regalis*

      Yeah, that’s what I came here to say too. Why are you willing to bend over backwards for Alex but not for everyone he’s creeping out? Does their enjoyment of these events not matter? Why are they being treated like second-class citizens?

  50. Trout 'Waver*

    In regards to #1, I’ve heard that for every complaint you hear, 10-20 people just don’t say anything and stop coming. So take those complaints and multiply by 10-20 to get the true impact. Especially with parents.

    I played men’s club rugby for years. One club had a family friendly atmosphere. There was zero tolerance for making spouses and children feel uncomfortable when they attended games or socials. People brought their partners, children, parents, and dogs to all our matches.

    The other club I played for didn’t have similar values. The sidelines were empty at matches. I didn’t last long at that club.

    And honestly, rugby players aren’t know for their emotional intelligence. So if they can figure this one out, anyone can.

    1. go accountants*

      Exactly. Speaking up against bad behavior is too often frowned upon (the extent depends on the culture of the particular organization) which decreases the probability that anyone will complain.

    2. Joana*

      “I’ve heard that for every complaint you hear, 10-20 people just don’t say anything and stop coming.”

      Yeah! It’s incredibly common for things to fester because no one wants to speak up or feels like they won’t be listened to if they do. I’ve experienced this myself! I’m trying to live my life as someone who is the one who speaks up first to make it easier for those around me to realize “Hey, I’m not the only one bugged by this.” It’s starting to work.

    3. UKDancer*

      Yes, I went to a particular dance class that was run by a chap who felt he had a right to sleaze on the female dancers who met his preferences. It was pretty clear that nobody was going to do anything about him. So I stopped going and went elsewhere. I was definitely not the only one who decided this wasn’t going to change and voted with my feet.

  51. Tenebrae*

    Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but I didn’t see it. Speaking as someone who tends to need very precise language, I’d like to offer a tweak to the proposed language. I would say a blanket “don’t speak to children/people under 18 [without being approached first or whatever].” Otherwise I could easily see Alex continuing to bother a lot of the guests because he does “know” them – he talked for an hour to Little Susie last year.

  52. Dogbythefire*

    I was pondering the soda can scenario (taking one into a high-level meeting) and I think it feels off/not done because there’s some ceremony in the event and often beverages are offered and served in glasses, cups, etc.

    It would be like having a party with nice drinks and pretty glasses, but there’s one guest who showed up with their own can of (warm) soda or smudgey water bottle. It sort of brings down the vibe

    1. Antilles*

      While I’m sure there are some meetings that are indeed that level of ceremony, the overwhelming majority of corporate meetings aren’t anywhere *remotely* close to that level of formality, even if senior people happen to be there. The mere idea of “beverages being offered and served” would be extremely rare in most workplaces.
      Or to use your analogy, the vast majority of meetings are BYOB where people just sort of show up and you have to be very far outside the norm for it to be in any way notable.

    3. Dahlia*

      The letter says “on calls”.

      There’s not much ceremony to a Zoom meeting. The company isn’t offering beverages on a Zoom meeting.

  53. tabloidtained*

    LW1: There’s a current trend of paying lip service to neurodivergence inclusivity (a trend that extends to mental illness/disorder inclusivity) that results in people including and making accommodations for those NDs who are least likely to make anyone uncomfortable–the “good” ones. I don’t think it’s surprising that Alex is making women and girls uncomfortable, and I personally believe men encroach on women-centric spaces too often (My Little Pony’s older male fans come to mind) , but I also believe it’s worth keeping in mind that inclusivity doesn’t exist to serve only those it’s easy to include. If you can have a blunt conversation with Alex, you should. If you can recommend he attend with a behavioral aide, you should. If there are options to explore that would allow Alex to attend while preserving the experience of the women and girls who are majority of fans, those options should be explored before he’s banned from attending.

    LW4: Porn (it’s making and consumption) is inherently unethical, but I don’t think it’s worth addressing with a college student who is probably using her personal laptop in class.

    1. The Not-An-Underpants Gnome*

      At the risk of Starting Something, I have to ask…how is the creation of pornography still considered inherently unethical with the rise of more studios who are setting better boundaries health and otherwise with their actors? I genuinely don’t understand.

      1. Lightbourne Elite*

        Yeah, I’ve BEEN IN ethical porn. It exists. But it’s not found for free on PornHub.

  54. DramaQ*

    Every convention I’ve been to in recent times has very strict codes of conduct. Alex would have been banned from all of them at this point. All of them work very hard to be inclusive but the code of conducts drill home that comfort is for ALL attendees.

    And they list out things that I wouldn’t in a million years have considered needed to be said like don’t touch people in costume, don’t harass female cosplayers etc.

    Kinda makes you wonder who attends these things when reading it. But it’s all laid out including you are going to be escorted out, no refund and possibly banned from ever attending again.

    LW1 you need that code of conduct. When purchasing tickets online I have to click the little box saying I read it. Not actually reading it is no excuse I am agreeing to abide by it when I purchase the tickets.

    I feel like we’re getting too far into the weeds of being inclusive. He stalked your speaker. It doesn’t matter that you think he didn’t understand his behavior falls under the definition of stalking. You are going to lose speakers I wouldn’t be shocked if Joyce drops out if she finds out Alex is allowed to attend and odds are very good she will spread the word to other speakers who will also decline.

    Who knows how many attendees you’ve already lost and will continue to lose. I can be understanding of someone’s cognitive abilities all I want but that does not mean I am going to force my 14 year old daughter to be uncomfortable. If she didn’t want to attend because of Alex I am going to respect it. And I’m going to warn other mothers about Alex’s behavior so they can make an informed decision.

    Alex has every right to exist and every right to attend. He doesn’t have the right to follow us around talking to the point where my daughter is feeling harassed.

    You are bending over backwards to include Alex at the expense of your convention.

    If you haven’t had a official code of conduct before do so now before the next one starts. Put it on your web page and have it clearly displayed for when people enter the convention. Don’t make people follow Alex around to control his behavior that isn’t fair to your staff or the people attending. Alex is an adult either he brings an aid with him like someone else suggested or he behaves. If it’s neither then out he goes.

  55. CommanderBanana*

    Also, LW#1, you are on a planning committee for an event. You are not Alex’s therapist, you are not his advocate, you are not his behavioral specialist, but you are responsible, along with the other committee members and event planners and staff, for the safety and comfort of your attendees while at this event. ALL of your attendees. Not just Alex. Inclusivity does not mean allowing one attendee to harass (because that’s what this is) and stalk (because that’s also what this is) other attendees.

    “Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her.”

    He called and texted someone after being directly told not to and then escalated to sending things to her house.

    And before the inevitable “but AUTISM!!!!” crowd shows up here, I’m neurodivergent and many members of my extended and immediate family are on the autism spectrum. That still doesn’t make this behavior ok or justifiable.

    1. Tree*

      Agree.

      Also, what about the ND little girls and women whose social skills don’t extend to finding the right way to extricate themselves from a conversation with a man who isn’t respecting their boundaries? (Or for that matter the neurotypical women and girls who have to fight their socialization to do so?)

      Allowing this situation to continue is not being inclusive to ND peeps.

  56. The Frogs Are Okay*

    Re letter 1: I’m a Disabled person who works with the Disabled community and I think it’s highly disturbing that so many people in the comments are advocating for removing Alex without trying to find a solution. Abled people express being uncomfortable all the time. They say our amputations, our scars, our medical aids, our movements, etc all make them uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable isn’t the same as being harmed or unsafe. I simply can’t imagine having people being uncomfortable as my sole litmus test for whether a marginalized individual should be allowed to be in attendance.

    1. dulcinea47*

      what do you call all the hand holding they’ve been doing for years? They’ve tried. Nothing has worked. He stalked someone. There’s no “sole litmus test” here.

      1. The Frogs Are Okay*

        I mean that some commenters have said people being uncomfortable is enough of a reason to not have this individual. The focus should be on unsafe behavior, like stalking, people should be banned/removed/etc for harmful and unsafe behavior, not discomfort. It sounds like Alex stopped stalking, but its completely understandable if they still feel unsafe.

        I feel that discomfort in and of itself is too weak of a reason to remove people because it would apply so broadly to people who are safe and not harmful. I am not criticizing the letter writer at all. I know they have tried things and are being very thoughtful. Some commenters are saying that they shouldn’t have even bothered trying. That’s what I find so bizarre.

    3. CityMouse*

      Playing off stalking and behavior towards young girls as “uncomfortable”, is, frankly, extremely disturbing.

        1. CityMouse*

          You can’t ignore his past. But if you want to pretend that the stalking wasn’t there, this is still a guy who’d talking minor girls after the parents try to get him to stop, to the point they’re getting multiple complaints that is STILL not okay. These kids are people too.

    4. Admin Lackey*

      I’m sympathetic to your point of view, but I think continuing to contact a woman after she told him to leave her alone and going so far as to /send things to her house/ puts this guy in a different category.

      I know several people who struggle with social cues because of a disability and none of them would send mail to a person who told them to leave them alone.

      I’m afab and have been told all my life to accommodate bad and uncomfortable behaviour from men because ‘he’s a nice guy,’ ‘he’s awkward,’ ‘he doesn’t know any better,’ and I’m fucking tired.

      I think that’s where a lot of commenters are coming from – our society gives endless grace to certain men at the expense of women and girls.

      1. The Frogs Are Okay*

        Yes, I think the stalking is unsafe and harmful. I am bothered by the commenters that said he made people uncomfortable so he should go and that the letter writer shouldn’t have even bothered trying.

        I’m sorry you’ve had those experiences, as I also have.

        1. CityMouse*

          You can’t pretend those commenters and OP don’t know about his history of stalking. They’re viewing this guy in his whole context. This isn’t a letter about a guy who’s a bit weird, this is a letter about a guy who’s displayed unsafe behaviors.

          1. Joana*

            And on top of that, none of us are saying that he should have been thrown out with the bath water right away. We’re looking at this from the POV that he’s been doing this for a long time, towards people who have outright said ‘stop contacting me/stop talking to me’ and that his behavior has escalated.

            If this WERE a letter where he had done one slightly off thing once or twice, it wouldn’t feel as bad. But it’s gotten out of hand.

    5. Joana*

      I’m saying this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you think that letting a person stalk others and monopolize their time despite being repeatedly told to leave them alone is appropriate accommodation, I wouldn’t want to work with you.

        1. Joana*

          Well, it definitely sounds like it by you saying that we’re being unfair for judging him this way. People aren’t uncomfortable with this man because he has a disability, people are uncomfortable with this man because of the way he is treating them. It doesn’t matter if he understands his actions are inappropriate or not. If he doesn’t, then LW can certainly try having a very blunt conversation with him. But regardless of if he continues to act that way afterwards or not, he has mistreated people in ways that are not acceptable by society, and in an especially vulnerable group of people.

        2. biobotb*

          Your original comment could be read that way. After all, what did he do to Joyce besides make her feel uncomfortable?

    6. DramaQ*

      No there is a difference between having a right to exist and be in public places and being allowed to stalk someone. He stalked Joyce, even if we argue he didn’t understand that’s what he was doing he stalked her. Joyce shouldn’t have to suck it up and have her stalker attend her speech in the name of being inclusive.

      Any convention I have been to recently has in their code of conducts that behavior like that would be an immediate ban. Being warned not to follow female attendees around and not listening would at minimum lead to being escorted out.

      His comfort does not come at the expense of everyone else’s. Being tolerant and inclusive does not mean that my 14 year old daughter should have to have a grown man following her around talking to her if she doesn’t want to. That just teaches our kids to ignore their boundaries lest they make someone feel bad. Alex is still an adult and she has every right to not be comfortable with a strange adult man following her around.

      The convention has to weigh that speakers may stop participating and they are going to lose/have lost attendees because Alex cannot control his behavior and they are not enforcing a code of conduct. They need to consider the best interests of the convention not just Alex. If Alex can’t behave himself there are consequences just like for everyone else.

    7. Indecisive Tree*

      This is a completely different situation. Amputations, scars, etc. are nobody’s business. But actual interactions with others are their business. Also, in this particular case, “uncomfortable” is a socially acceptable way to say “creeped out”, “threatened” etc. It’s not the same kind of uncomfortable as what you’re describing.

    8. Peanut Hamper*

      1) They have tried to find a solution in the past, including buddying up to him at past events.

      2) He has been removed from a social media group related to this IP because of his inappropriate interactions with a group member, and he has since stopped those interactions, so he is capable of learning to control his behavior.

      3) “Being uncomfortable isn’t the same as being harmed or unsafe” — True, but if Alex is wandering around talking to young girls, both the girls and their mothers may not just feel uncomfortable, they may also feel unsafe.

      Alex is not being penalized for being disabled, he is being penalized for his behavior. He is being penalized for something he has shown that he has control over.

      Serious question for you: if a disabled person were using one of their crutches to whack people in the shins at an event you were in charge of and they refused to stop doing this despite repeated warnings, how would you handle this?

    9. CommanderBanana*

      Amputations, scars, medical aids, movements, etc., do not make me uncomfortable. Service animals do not make me uncomfortable. Mobility aids do not make me uncomfortable. Sign language interpreters do not make me uncomfortable. Colostomy bags don’t make me uncomfortable.

      Stalking and harassment make me uncomfortable.

      1. RVA Cat*

        This. Alex’s behavior is like someone walking around in a Speedo in a “shoes and shirts required” space.

    11. jasmine*

      So I once knew this guy who attended some of social events. I immediately felt off about him. But I thought “oh well I just met him, I should keep an open mind”. Surprise surprise, he indeed ended up being a misogynistic man.

      It’s true that we should be mindful of when our internal alarm bells are a result of unconscious bias. But this isn’t a few one-off’s, this letter is a pretty significant list. Yes, being uncomfortable isn’t the same as being harmed or unsafe. But when a woman says a man makes her uncomfortable, it usually means a pretty specific thing. That doesn’t mean bias isn’t at play. But you have to balance that against all the times women are told to ignore their instincts only to be proved right later. There’s just… so much in what LW wrote

    12. Rex Libris*

      This isn’t being uncomfortable in the mere presence of someone with a disability. It’s being uncomfortable with someone who consistently engages others in unwanted conversations, contacts people obsessively after being asked not to, and engages in unwanted interactions with children, and all at a level that has prompted multiple complaints from parents and others.

    13. nodramalama*

      I’m so confused by these comments that essentially boil down to, any behaviour, no matter how they affect others around them, must be accepted if that person has a disability.

      1. CityMouse*

        Like seriously, should this guy be.allowed to continue to make young girls feel unsafe? Are those kids not people too? Girls who are being told they matter less than this one man, a man who had a history of stalking.

        if I’m a mom, I hear from other moms this guy is coming up to multiple kids, multiple parents have made complaints AND I find out this guy’s been banned elsewhere for stalking? I’m not just never coming back, I’m warning other parents to stay away.

      2. Meep*

        The one below talking about how she was ostracized for being Jewish is also such an uncomfortable take. Like, can I see it happening? Sure. Does it comes off as more sinister that you are using your own struggles to defend this guy? Absolutely!

    14. nonbeenary*

      I think you’re mixing up two very different uses of the word “uncomfortable” here – and I am saying this as a neurodivergent person who uses a mobility aid. There is a difference between “uncomfortable seeing Visible Signs of Disability because I hate disabled people” and “uncomfortable because this adult man is following me and my child around, monopolizing our attention, refusing to leave us alone after being asked directly, and mailing things to my house after I ended our friendship, and has done this to multiple other women and girls also.”
      We don’t know if all or even most of the women and girls he’s bothering *are* abled – they very well could be disabled themselves!
      And, on a business front: With events like this, the comfort and enjoyment of attendees is the point, in the way that good food is part of running a restaurant. They’re well within their rights to complain that the thing they paid for (comfort and enjoyment) is not being delivered.

    15. Meep*

      Comparing disability to harmful, dangerous behavior is a… choice…

      It is heartbreaking to hear that you work vulnerable populations while being happy to exploit them for a man. Sad.

  57. TotesMaGoats*

    #1-Fully agree with AAM and the folks saying, be blunt (more than you would normally be) and lay out clear terms. Hold boundaries for your guests/customers. Create a phone number or email where guests can text if they feel unsafe. A code word.
    #2-Aside from things that are clearly alcohol which are probably no ok at your work, I wouldn’t over think this. If you are concerned, put whatever it is in a mug or yeti-esque thing. Everyone I work with knows my love of Diet Dr. Pepper and Cheerwine zero. If you can’t handle me at my diet soda, you can’t have me at my sparking glacier water in a crystal goblet.
    #3-Band together and create a plan for the “team building”? Run away. This sucks for you.
    #4-Unless you happen to be at a very religious school, yes, probably best to leave it alone. You can always check your student code of conduct. But I doubt it would go anywhere.

  58. SociallyAwkward*

    To those who are calling Alex a creeper, I have read the original post multiple times and see nothing indicating Alex is a creeper or anything more than very socially awkward/missing social cues and solely because he is an adult male doing this mothers are uncomfortable. The post specifically says Alex does nothing inappropriate. Frankly, it seems like commenters are equating missing social cues with being a pedophile which is all kinds of problematic, especially in a space where the point is to discuss your fandom/something you’re passionate about with others who have signalled they share that passion through attendance at a public event.

    I have never been diagnosed with any type of neurodiversity, but I am very socially awkward and miss cues from others all the time. Part of my social awkwardness stems from being ostracized as a kid/teen and missing out on the normal social training that often helps folks navigate social situations.

    I have also dealt with authorities who took complaints that I should be kicked out of a public case (in my case a public junior high school) because I bothered them – over 1000 people in a 1400 person school signed a petition (despite my having all of my classes except gym and art with the same ~50 students). Why? Because I was Jewish.

    I have also found refuge in various geeky spaces where I know I miss social cues and some people don’t like me because of it, but it is generally accepted that anyone can participate unless they do something genuinely inappropriate- social awkwardness or making someone else vaguely uncomfortable because you aren’t picking up on social cues around you do not qualify.

    So the whole situation with Alex is hitting a lot of buttons, as is the reaction to it.

    BTW, I’m female and now in my 50s. The comments here make me very glad I’m not male (and I don’t say that very often).

    1. Tobias Funke*

      Funny, when I hit command + F, the only result for the word “pedophile” I got was in your comment.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          And that he’s oh so conveniently found a space filled with only girls and women and led by a cadre of people that are so worried about inclusivity that they’re apparently willing to do the following:

          – stoplight badges
          – have a volunteer nanny this guy 24/7 while he’s there (seriously, what? I have been a volunteer coordinator for years, and I would never, ever, consider posting a volunteer coordinator to follow That One Guy around to make sure he doesn’t corner a girl and talk at her until someone explicitly tells him to stop)
          – institute a whole set of rules because of This One Guy
          – split tours by age group (again, what? Did any of the attendees ask for this?)
          – ignore written feedback
          – ignore verbal feedback
          – have to already ban him from one space because he stalked and harassed a speaker

          But not to actually, you know, ban him from the event and fandom he seems so intent on ruining for literally everyone else.*

          *Right, I forgot, they’re women and girls, so who cares? It’s not like this event wouldn’t even exist without them!

          1. LW 1*

            The age group tour thing was never on the table for us! I think that was only a suggestion from someone else.

            Everything else we’ve talked about implementing would be beneficial for all of us, and not just Alex.

            And banning him is still very much on the table. We just wanted advice on if it was salvageable. We definitely want to make it safe for everyone!

    2. Jennifer Strange*

      In your many readings of the letter you seem to have missed that he continued calling/texting someone who told him repeatedly to stop to the point that he had to be banned from a group, and then proceeded to MAIL things to the same person. That is definitely creepy behavior. Whether it has to do with being ND doesn’t matter.

    3. Nancy*

      “Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her.”

    4. nodramalama*

      I love all the people saying “alex hasn’t done anything inappropriate” seem to just be ignoring the part where he was banned from the social media group because he kept contacting a woman after he was told to stop, and then mailed things to her house. If that’s not inappropriate, I don’t know what is.

      2. CommanderBanana*

        I work in domestic violence and mailing things to someone’s house after being told to stop contacting them is literally one of the definitions of stalking and literally illegal once you have a no contact or restraining order against someone. Just throwing that out there for all the people in the comments who think it’s NBD.

        1. nodramalama*

          also, like not to go down a rabbit hole, but how did he even know her address? It’s just SO inappropriate even if he hadn’t already been told to stop contacting her.

          1. Joana*

            That… MIGHT not be a red flag; I’ve been in plenty of communities that shared addresses for things like care packages, gift exchanges etc. But even if that were the case, without permission to keep sending packages/letters, using his knowledge of her address for one thing to continue stalking her after asked to stop contacting her is incredibly inappropriate.

            2. LW 1*

              This is exactly it, we’ve done card/gift exchanges, so it was readily available. He shouldn’t have used it, but he didn’t have to go looking for it.

    5. Joana*

      “Unless they do something genuinely inappropriate” So continuing to contact someone after they asked you not to, and then mailing things to their physical address when banned from contacting them isn’t considered inappropriate? Maybe he DOESN’T mean to come off that way, but there have been a ton of letters here at AAM over the years that have all come to the conclusion that intentions aren’t as important as optics when it comes to determining how your actions are affecting other people.

  59. HannahS*

    OP1, you might find some helpful insights from this letter, particularly around becoming in charge of a situation where someone’s problematic behaviour probably wasn’t adequately addressed before.

    https://www.askamanager.org/2022/09/dealing-with-a-problematic-member-of-a-board-games-group.htmlhttps://www.askamanager.org/2022/09/dealing-with-a-problematic-member-of-a-board-games-group.html

    Practically speaking, “how do we address this without being rude or infantilizing” is not necessarily a helpful question. His history of stalker-like behaviour shows that subtle, polite requests will not work; having volunteers “babysit” him without his knowledge is already infantilizing. Instead, the question should be, “How can we be as inclusive as possible to all members of this fandom?”

    We know that he has been told at least once that his behaviour is unacceptable and been banned from a social group. Even though his neurodivergence may prevent him from fluently reading social cues, it does not prevent him from believing people who tell him that his behaviour is unwanted, hiring a social skills coach, inviting a friend or relative to attend with him, or reading online about boundaries and creepiness and how to behave around women and minors.

    1. The Rafters*

      Not only infantilizing but offensive to the person being asked to babysit. I wonder how many participants, volunteers, vendors, whomever, dropped out b/c of Alex.

  60. Goddess47*

    For #1

    Your code of conduct needs a clear “no means no” statement with consequences. “The first supported complaint means being required to immediately leave the in-person event for the day. A second supported complaint means being immediately banned from attending the in-person event completely. A third supported complaint means being banned from online participation in the conference. Any person who has three or more complaints may be banned from future conferences; that decision will be made by the conference committee.”

    And then you need “Any person asked to leave either the in-person or online portions of the conference will not have their conference fees refunded to them.”

    And you need a security group who will be willing to sort through complaints as needed who will deal with the he said/she said sorts of things.

    Good luck.

  61. Jiminy Cricket*

    LW#1 You say that Alex does not need support in his relatively high-powered career. That tells me that he operates successfully in the corporate world. So, since “social mode” isn’t working, I would try switching to “corporate mode” and communicating with him in those terms: These are the expectations. These are the consequences for not meeting those expectations. Is that clear and do you have what you need to succeed?

  62. Strive to Excel*

    I’m quite surprised at the answers to #4, because setting aside all concerns of company ethics, porn does not belong in the workplace. Or the school. Yes we’re adults we know it exists. If someone when asked what they were doing on the weekend replies with “I watched a lot of PornHub!” at best they’re going to come off as completely socially incompetent. At worst, someone will have grounds to make a claim of sexual harassment.

    I wouldn’t assume that the student knows this of course – mistakes like this happen all the time from culture, language, and education differences. But it would be kind for their guidance counselor or a trusted teacher to sit them down and say “that’s not an OK sticker to have in the workplace”.

    1. Jeanine*

      But this isn’t a workplace it’s a college and it seriously doesn’t matter what stickers someone has.

    2. nodramalama*

      they’re not in a workplace. they’re in a college. Lots of behaviour isn’t ok at work that nobody cares about at work. it’s not ok to spend an entire meeting online shopping at work, but I spent many a lecture doing that at uni.

      At my uni there were plenty of explicit conversations about sex, drugs, hook ups, gossip, porn that would never be appropriate in a workplace.

      1. Orv*

        To be clear, if they had visible porn on their screen in a college classroom, that would not be acceptable. But a sticker that just says “Pornhub” isn’t the same thing.

  63. Bookworm*

    #1 –

    Just because someone is mentally/physically disabled, they cannot be allowed leeway with behavior that would not be tolerated in someone not mentally/physically disabled.

    I had a good friend in high school (in the 80s), whose brother was mentally disabled from a birth injury. He was allowed free rein to tear up whatever he wanted to in the house, including friend’s possessions in her room. Parents didn’t permit her to lock away anything. She had to keep her Catholic school uniform, schoolbooks, and homework at a relative’s home so they wouldn’t be destroyed as well. She couldn’t take library books home otherwise they would be destroyed. Parents just said “well, brother is just this way and we have to put up with it.”

    1. CowWhisperer*

      I got a student with severe violent behavior issues with multiple disabilities because his previous teacher had run her room with the ‘rule’ that Kid could do whatever he wanted and all other students just needed to deal.

      That got said teacher on a PIP, but that’s another story.

      I won’t pretend our first 3 months together were anything besides working on behavior, language building and relationship building – and hard. But Kid did learn to control his aggressive behavior towards other students rapidly and had decreased his behaviors towards staff.

      Most people can learn.

      The ones who really can’t deserve caregivers who keep them safe by adjusting the environment (like door locks) rather than letting them do whatever – but honestly – most of the people who have lost the capacity to learn are also unable to do much at all because they are dealing with massive brain damage across multiple area.

      I’m sorry your friend’s childhood was abusive. Because her parents were allowing abusive behavior by not creating a system where her brother had areas he could be safe AND areas where she could be safe.

  64. Clueless*

    Google told me that IP was intellectual property or internet protocol. That seems unlikely to be the meaning for the first situation. What is the real meaning in this instance? It helps when acronyms are spelled out in their first usage, as is the rule in academic writing.

    1. Joana*

      Intellectual property is the correct meaning. It refers to the thing the fandom is based off (a show, book, video game etc is the intellectual property of whatever person/company owns it).

    2. Will "scifantasy" Frank*

      Here it means “intellectual property,” in this case, the show or movie or book that the fandom is for. Fans of the Marvel movies are fans of the Marvel IP, sort of thing.

    3. Donkey Hotey*

      Some abbreviations are assumed to be known. (He writes at 8:48 of the clock, ante meridiem.)

  65. Pay no attention...*

    #3 I guess it could be incompetence, but it sounds more like malicious retaliation on whomever reported the department to the regulatory agency — team-building tends to be universally disliked and even more so on teams that actually don’t work well together, so I’m imagining TPTB along with Julie deciding, “one or more of you have a problem here and enough time to make a report? Fine spend a few days uselessly rebuilding relationships and see if you do it again.”

  66. fhqwhgads*

    LW3: this reads to me like your management’s response to someone reporting the regulation-breaking (caused by Julie) to be to try to get y’all into a mindset of not reporting things, rather than caring about compliance? If the workshop is about coworker relationships and not, say, compliance, they’re trying to say “like each other enough to not want to snitch”, not “follow the regs”.
    So if I were to push back on the workshop – and that’s a big if – I wouldn’t focus on it not being worth the time, I’d maybe call it out in an “I’m confused” way, that puts the focus back on “what are we doing to stay in compliance?” which of course has nothing to do with relationships. Either they’ll say the quiet part aloud about what they’re really trying to do, or you’ll know for sure there’s no salvaging here because they don’t actually care about compliance, they care about not getting caught.

  67. Will "scifantasy" Frank*

    As I’ve mentioned before in a couple of posts, I have been involved in what gets laughingly called “organized” science fiction fandom. (Think the old Will Rogers line, “I’m not a member of any organized political party…. I’m a Democrat.”) That’s the group that runs the World Science Fiction Convention every year and awards the Hugo Awards.

    I have seen many, many, many Alexes, and heard every one of the “neurodivergent”/”didn’t understand”/”trying to be inclusive” points in these comments.

    And then there’s this:

    Alex was also removed from a social media group for this IP, for continuing to call and text a member, Joyce, after she asked him not to, and then mailing things to her home as apologies for upsetting her.

    We have graduated to stalker behavior.

    I’m not saying that Alex needs to be kicked out…but it’s waaaaaay past time to stop prioritizing Alex’s experience over everybody else’s.

    1. Donkey Hotey*

      1- 100000% Time to refocus.
      2- See you in Seattle next summer! (I’m a general, non creepy, non stalker sorry of way.)

  68. Oranigina Limone*

    I work in a field that has a higher incidence of people on the autism spectrum, and indeed they’re highly functional and generally lovely people, who also often happen to have fixated interests and fail to readily pick up on social cues. I appreciate that the OP sees the facets of this and isn’t just going “Alex is a problem; how do we exclude him?”

    What I’ve found is that my team members really will listen to kindly presented, *detailed* feedback. For example, Alison’s advice to say “Please don’t speak to children you don’t know because they don’t like it” is spot on — it’s clear and actionable and doesn’t require them to guess at why you’re suggesting it. So my bet is that, given a couple such clear guidelines, Alex will respond positively.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      Also, it has been my experience that if a kid wants to talk to you about something they are interested in, they will! In fact, you cannot stop them, which is how I’ve ended up in multiple conversations about Pokémon despite having zero interest in Pokémon and no children.

      If kids at this con want to talk to Alex about whatever IP this is about, they will, you know, do that.

    2. The Rafters*

      Sorry, but I would remove the “please,” and just say don’t. After how he treated Joyce, he doesn’t deserve “nice,” he needs “do not ever.”

  69. less is better*

    LW1: I took a continuing ed class one time with a classmate who kept trying to engage in idle chitchat with me DURING the class. I was paying to be there, and very interested in what the instructor was saying, so it was incredibly irritating that this guy kept talking over the content that I wanted to hear.

    So if you do give Alex guidelines, don’t just say “max 5 mins per person”. Please tell him not to chat people up AT ALL during any actual presentations. And on breaks, personally I think 2 mins of chatting is plenty. People may have things they need to do on break (bathroom, refill water bottle, etc) and if he takes up 5 mins of their time, they may not get to do all the things they needed to do.

  70. Joana*

    Re LW #1, it’s been said a lot both here and on other similar sites: if a neurodivergent person is making others feel uncomfortable unintentionally, generally we’ll want to know and will feel bad about it. We really don’t mean to do so! I wasn’t diagnosed until my thirties so I’ve by necessity had to learn these things and I’m better at faking it than others, but I still have trouble and am probably not going to know if someone just keeps things soft in their approach.

    What I’m saying is, talk bluntly with Alex. Lay down the law, give him the reasons for it. If he really isn’t doing this intentionally and is just being really enthusiastic in a group of like-minded individuals, he’ll be ashamed. If he’s doing it because he’s also a creep and gets a kick out of it, you’ll be able to tell by how he carries out his future actions. And on the off-chance that he isn’t doing it intentionally but also has difficulty following instructions on how to act, well, it’s unfortunate but that’s also a reason to keep him reigned-in, whether that means making sure someone is keeping an eye on him or outright banning him from events. One person’s hurt feelings aren’t as important as a group of dozens or hundreds of women and girls feeling safe in what’s supposed to be a safe space.

    1. Meep*

      It sounds like he HAS been told repeatedly and talked to. He was banned from events for this behavior. He stalked someone who told him ffs.

      Please stop defending this.

      1. Joana*

        I’m absolutely not. In fact I’ve been speaking against people who say “but what about his feeeeeeeeeelings.” I’m saying if OP feels the need to have a blunt conversation with him, that hopefully that’s all it will take. And that if it comes to him or the multiple women, to go with the women. There should be no hesitance in banning him if that is the solution.

        1. Meep*

          And I am saying, he has had many a blunt conversations about his behavior. Giving him another fifty chances isn’t going to fix this. Stop coddling him and get real.

  71. CommanderBanana*

    Isn’t it interesting how at an event that is almost exclusively attended by women and girls, there is still That One Guy that everyone involved in planning the event is bending over backwards for? It’s just so interesting.

    1. Joana*

      Spaces that are acknowledged as mostly inhabited by women have this tendency to be seen as… lesser? Fandom in general is often full of women (and femme-presenting nonbinary/genderfluid/etc people). And then men come in and take part and they’re seen as so important and brave! A company mostly staffed by women is still more likely to promote the one man working there faster than any of the women with equivalent or more merit. So yeah, the fact that, intentionally or not, this man’s feelings are being put above those of the women and girls is… disappointing but not surprising.

      1. Katherine*

        Yep, this is one of those that’s making me angrier and angrier as I think about it.

        I’m in a niche FB group that has a stalker. He contacts women in the group and asks them to send nudes. Many, many, attempts were made to stop him. One time, a guy in the group sent him a really strongly worded message, calling him a creep, and posted the message to show everyone. He got a whole lot of “wow, that was really unkind.” Because we have to protect the sexual harasser’s FEELINGS, and it doesn’t matter HOW many times we already told him to stop!

    2. Orv*

      Yyyyup.

      It’s especially fun when That One Guy starts mansplaining how the IP the event is about is *actually* meant for guys.

  72. dude, who moved my cheese?*

    LW1- he stalked one of your event speakers. He texted and called her after she told him to stop, and then he mailed things to her house. Her house!!

    Stoplight color badges are not going to fix this.

    You either have to lose him as an attendee, or you will eventually risk losing credibility for your event as a whole.

  73. Roxy*

    Regarding letter one, if it’s a fan set up event, could you not split the tour into 2 age groups (maybe at different times?) say one on Saturday at 11 for people 18 and over, and one at Saturday at 2 for people 17 and under, with one guardian? Not only would it allow Alex to attend, it might encourage other adults to want to attend to (maybe they don’t want to go precisely because whatever it is is mainly geared towards children and they know and foresee the potential problems with being that One Adult with a group of kids) and it means that the ,ids and there adults could all enjoy the tour together without having to worry about random adults.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      …….no. Again, and clearly this is really hard for people to comprehend, if you are radically changing an event to accommodate One Guy, No Seriously Folks, It’s Literally That One Guy! you are doing too much.

    2. Dahlia*

      That’s extremely excessive. Adults being in proximity to children are not inherently dangerous or creepy or bad. Children having safe adults in their lives is what keeps them safe from dangerous people. That includes adults they’re not related to.

  74. Katherine*

    I might be crossing a line here, but am I the only one a little suspicious of the fact that Alex “clearly has higher support needs in terms of interpersonal skills, he has low support needs in his high-level career.” What high-level career does not include interpersonal skills of SOME kind? It seems to me that Alex just knows when bad behavior will and will not be tolerated.

    I have an abusive family member. This person hasn’t made it an hour in my presence without criticizing me since the 1990s. We haven’t spoken in years. Back when I used to try to get this person to change their behavior, one of their big excuses was that they meant well, were trying to help me, etc. I would always tell them that was horseshit. This person had a job, was married, and had friends. If they treated ANYONE at work the way they treated me, they would get fired. They wouldn’t have gotten past the first date if they had behaved that way towards their spouse. And they certainly wouldn’t have a single friend. They OBVIOUSLY knew how to be a decent person, or give the appearance of one, and were just opting out when it came to me. So the fact that Alex needs all this guidance at a con, but somehow doesn’t need anyone to help him navigate the WORKFORCE, just doesn’t ring true with me. Especially coupled with the story about being banned for repeatedly contacting Janice.

    1. Katherine*

      I’m sorry. I called Joyce Janice. It’s not because i’m watching Friends and reading AAM comments instead of working.

    2. Purple Turtle*

      Excellent point! Whenever I met someone with such a high degree of cluelessness as Alex, I noticed they were really clueless only around those who they perceived as weaker (hierarchically, socially, physically, etc).

    3. Jenesis*

      I would bet money that the people Alex interacts with at his “high-level career” are entirely or largely composed of males his same age or older, as opposed to women and underage girls.

      Sadly, men being terrible at interacting with women because they treat men and women like they’re practically different species is not just an ND thing.

    4. HelloWorld*

      Men with high-level career and creepy behaviour together freaks me out. What career is this?

  75. Mgguy*

    For LW1-before getting to the end of your letter, I was already picturing some people I know/have known who have acted similarly and also knew those people to have some form of ASD, usually Asperger’s(if that’s a diagnosis that’s still used?). One college friend who I knew very well told me that they often felt like in social situations, there was a list of rules everyone else was following that he’d never been given. At least from my understanding, there’s some truth to that in a round about way-people who are otherwise highly functioning with some diagnosed form of ASD often are unable to pickup and process the sort of subtle social clues that neurotypical people have been learning and remembering quite literally as long as they’ve been able to talk and interact! In other words, those of us who are neurotypical at least in this area DO have a “rule list” we follow, although we’ve made it ourselves based on our observations/experiences, constantly adjust it based on situations and new experiences, and it’s so deeply ingrained in us that we’re not even aware that it’s what we’re following. When I could, for my friend, if I was going somewhere with him or even if he told me he was going to a situation, I’d often lay out specific “Do this, don’t do that” scenarios for him, and he found that on the whole he enjoyed being there and people enjoyed his presence a lot more. Of course too it could still be touchy with things that are more subjective, like “It’s fine for there to be an extended conversation if you find that someone has a mutual interest, but a conversation also means giving the other person a chance to talk” and that some people will feign interest in a subject that someone else is clearly passionate about as a matter of politeness when they actually have little to none. A few different people talked to this friend some about reading body language and things like to tell them, but I advised just talking for 2-3 minutes then saying something like “Sorry, I can ramble sometimes, I’ll let you go unless you want to keep talking.”

    From your comments, it does sound like Alex reponds well and respects clear, direct instructions. Of course everyone is different, and you know while none of the rest of us do, but a very frank conversation or even a written list of “These are the specific behaviors you need to avoid here”, perhaps softened a bit with the framing of “making sure everyone has the best time” might actually be welcome to him-it’s exactly the sort of “rule list” my college friend said he wished he had for every situation. If you’re not sure how he would react to this, perhaps start with Alison’s script and offer a specific list if he’d prefer…

    1. Moose*

      “From your comments, it does sound like Alex reponds well and respects clear, direct instructions.”

      But he doesn’t! He was told explicitly to stop contacting someone and he mailed things to her house. That is the opposite of respecting clear and direct instructions. Alex is a big problem and they are not protecting their attendees.

  76. The Not-An-Underpants Gnome*

    I myself am autistic, and also have been volunteering off and on at a local con since 2012, and LW1 reminded me of an incident that will ALWAYS stick in my mind as the moment I realized WHY folks get away with things for so long.

    I was working admissions with a good friend, and two younger girls, probably in their teens, came up to us looking really uncomfortable and said they needed to talk to someone about the behavior of another person who was attending.

    Our minds jumped to sexual harassment; it turned out to be significantly worse (dude had found a nest of birds that had passed away and decided to field dress them). We immediately told one of our seniors, who looked as horrified as we were and took the girls to the head of the con’s makeshift office BEFORE radioing for security to meet him in the area where the incident had occurred.

    The look of absolute relief on the faces of those girls when they realized that one, they were immediately believed and two, they weren’t going to be dragged back downstairs to where the creep was is something I will never forget.

    It also made me wonder how many cons they’d been to where this WASN’T the norm, and what they’d seen and experienced to make them feel uncomfortable approaching volunteer staff to tell them something wasn’t right.

    Speak to Alex directly and concretely. If he gives ANY pushback AT ALL when you do? Ban his ass.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      OH MY GOD. As an events professional and longtime volunteer/volunteer coordinator for cons, I am so sorry AND I am so glad that you dealt with this IMMEDIATELY. I also really hope that you removed this attendee from the con and put them on the Do Not Attend list.

      If this had been the LW’s events committee, they would probably have still been tapdancing around whether telling people that conducting amateur taxidermy on dead animals at an event was inclusive or not.

      1. The Not-An-Underpants Gnome*

        I heard from another volunteer who was stationed on that floor that the person was calmly escorted from the property by security. They had only seen that part and came up to ask us if we knew WTF had caused it. They were grossed out as hell. I told them I’m glad I didn’t actually see the act go down because I absolutely would have run screaming and vomiting from the scene.

        The guy that runs the con is a few years younger than me but has an absolute wonderful grasp on how to keep people behaving themselves during the con. To my knowledge, Field Dresser Frank is the only on-site issue we had; the only other instance of a creep was at the after party in 2022 and that guy had his wristband taken back by the con runner’s girlfriend and nearly ended up in a bar fight with some of the female volunteers who wanted to pummel him for being a creep.

        (I missed the after party that year due to knee issues but from other volunteers who were present, I got the story and found out he was also ejected from the after party and the other female volunteers present made offers to escort the poor folks he’d been creeping on home as bodyguards if wanted. Everyone got home safely and he never showed up again.)

  77. CommanderBanana*

    Also, for those commenters leaping to Alex’s defense by saying he’s being treated poorly because he’s the only (or one of the only) guys at an event that is otherwise all women and girls – it has been my experience as volunteer in a space that is 99.99% women (domestic violence! How interesting that most domestic violence perpetrators are men, and yet those working to help victims and hopefully end DV are mostly women!) we are SO HAPPY when a guy volunteers, comes to one of our events, or is even literally just in the room when anything relating to stopping DV is being discussed.

    If Alex were an awesome con attendee, I am pretty sure that most of those moms there with their daughters would be like look at this cool guy! This is great that he’s here!

    1. CityMouse*

      I’m incredibly frustrated by the people who are suggesting Joyce somehow didn’t tell him not to stalk her in exactly the right way. This is not okay.

  78. Jellyfish Catcher*

    IANAL, but I would confidently say that Alex is creating liability for the church.
    The staff are aware of his behavior; women have complained for a long time ; underage girls have been approached, on and on, yet the problem has not been stopped.

    It’s only going to take one significant incident followed up by one damn good lawyer.
    The church will have to admit that they have been aware, yet never put down the inappropriate (and quite possibly illegal) behavior.
    It also burns my ass, in the Year of Our Lord 2024, that harassment of girls and women is still being treated treated as just “one of those things that we just can’t stop.”

    1. I should really pick a name*

      The church will have to admit that they have been aware, yet never put down the inappropriate (and quite possibly illegal) behavior

      Where are you seeing possibly illegal behaviour?
      (Also, I don’t believe a church was mentioned)

  79. Katherine*

    An earlier comment of mine didn’t get posted, not sure why. It was this: In my experience, the line between “sincerely does not know he’s doing something wrong, because he’s neurodivergent” and “is using the fact that he’s neurodivergent as an excuse to do whatever he wants” is the person’s response to being told what they’re doing wrong. A well-meaning neurodivergent person responds by apologizing, expressing thanks for the clear feedback/instructions, and changing his behavior. See also, the difference between a sexual harasser and a clueless, bumbling fool, as in this letter: https://www.askamanager.org/2017/12/should-i-tell-my-employer-about-my-boundary-crossing-coworker.html

    Alex has not done this. He was told to stop contacting a woman and he didn’t stop. He has, therefore, lost the benefit of the doubt. And we shouldn’t be suggesting all this emotional labor from the organizers and attendees, just to accommodate him.

  80. Meep*

    Re LW#1 – You know what I am tired of? ND men being held to lower standards than ND women who have learned to “mask” and cope out of necessity. If we can learn social cues and how to behave appropriately, these men can too.

    5. Ice Queen*

      AuDHD here, and yes. This was what I was trying to put into words as I was reading all the “but he’s just being friendly” comments.

  81. Moose*

    LW1

    I also run a fan event. The fan event attracts many people from the full spectrum of neurodivergence. I think you are totally mishandling the Alex situation and I think Alison’s advice is very bad. (Sorry Alison!)

    1. Do you have an anti-harassment policy? If not, you need one ASAP. There are a bunch on the internet from other fan events/conventions you can look to for a template. It should be easy to understand and draw clear boundaries around what behavior is allowed and what is not allowed. And these rules need to be the same for everyone.
    2. Alex refused to stop communicating with someone when they requested and then sent items to her house! That’s harassment, even if he didn’t “mean it that way.” Does Joyce know he will be at the event? What steps have you taken to ensure she will not be speaking with or interacting with Alex? Again, you have invited a speaker who has been harassed in the past by a known attendee. How are you protecting your speaker?

    The way you are handling Alex is a problem. You are prioritizing his enjoyment of your event over the feelings of safety of the other people attending. You need an anti-harassment policy. You need to require that he follows it. You need to have consequences for not following the anti-harassment policy. And the consequences need to be universal for everyone. We’ve had neurodivergent folks in the past violate our anti-harassment policy. We’ve explained in plain English what part of the policy they violated and the consequences for doing so.

    Please, for the love of fuck, stop prioritizing a grown ass man’s enjoyment of an event of the feelings of safety of literal children. Get a anti-harassment policy and follow it.

  82. T'Cael Zaanidor Kilyle*

    Monopolizing PEOPLE IN GENERAL, talking to them excessively, and ignoring cues that they would like the interaction to stop? A problem to address, but not one of huge concern.

    The exact same thing, but almost exclusively aimed at underage girls? Red alert, red alert, red alert.

    1. Wendy Darling*

      Yeah I’m REALLY curious if Alex ever does this to men and boys, and if not, how skewed of a fanbase are we talking here? Like is this an American Girl doll group and it’s Alex and 200 moms and little girls? Because if moms and their daughters are literally the only people available or very close to it, I’m more inclined to be like, okay that’s situational.

      But if this group is like 10% male and yet somehow Alex is NEVER hassling the men that is much more alarming.

      1. LW 1*

        Alex is generally the only man there, then a handful of mothers with their daughters, and the rest tend to be middle aged or older women. So women are the only people he can talk to! Occasionally a dad or partner will be there, but they don’t tend to attend the event itself.

  83. nnn*

    #1: One thing to consider when writing a code of conduct is to brainstorm “If we could make any rule, even if it sounds like a ridiculous rule to make, what kinds of rules would achieve our actual goals?”

    Sometimes you can achieve the desired behaviour that meets a community’s actual needs with highly-specific rules that, at first glance, elicit a reaction of “Dude, you can’t go around policing people like that!” But all kinds of things in life run smoothly because of seemingly-arbitrary rules. (e.g. “Decaf goes in the orange coffee pot”, “Stand right walk left”, “Use spoiler tags for details about episodes that were released less than 2 weeks ago”)

    So maybe your community would be well-served with a rule like “Adults are not allowed to initiate conversation with minors who are not in their own party.” (I don’t know if that has the right nuance, this is something to be brainstormed and refined within the community.) The sort of thing that, even if arbitrary, is easy and straightforward for a well-intentioned person to comply with.

    And when launching a new code of conduct that might include specific, arbitrary rules, clearly state that your goal is to provide an environment where young fans feel safe by default, without the burden of having to assert their boundaries, and that the rules are in response to specific issues that have made young fans feel unsafe in the past.

    (And if anyone complains about having to adapt so much to young fans, they’re welcome to start their own adults-only event)

  84. Katherine*

    Put simply, the attitude from LW seems to be: worst-case scenario, we alienate Alex. No. Worst-case scenario is you alienate the people he upsets, who didn’t do anything wrong in the first place.

  85. Katherine*

    Remember years ago there was a letter where someone wanted to kick a coworker off of her trivia team because he was rude and useless? People in the comments kept saying that the group should teach him some social skills, which sounds like a blast for a group of people at what was supposed to be a pub trivia night. Same thing here. Babysitters? Splitting it into two events? Buttons so he knows who’s open to a conversation? OH MY GOD.

  86. LW 1*

    LW 1 here- I’m traveling and in meetings all day today so I can’t read and respond to everyone just now, but know that the other committee members and I appreciate this discourse so much, and we’ll definitely take everything suggested into account! There’s so much nuance I wasn’t able to include, but know we are taking this all very seriously. Thanks again, everyone

    1. Moose*

      Thanks for reading and listening LW1. I just want to add that if the nuance is that he’s a big donor to your organization and you’re worried about alienating him and losing funding, you have a much bigger problem on your hands than what it appears to be here. And it looks like you have a pretty big problem on your hands.

        1. Moose*

          Not writing fanfic. Just adding an additional word of caution if something is true. I don’t know if this guy is a funder or not. But, as someone who is very involved in planning fandom events, I know that if they’re giving him leeway because he’s a donor they have a Big Very Bad Problem on their hands. And it’s not a perspective I have seen in the rest of the comments. And I’ve read the comments. (I’m a big fired up about this.)

    2. jasmine*

      good luck! there are A Lot of comments but would love to get an update from you after the con

  87. HelloWorld*

    Related to #1: When I was at university decades ago, another department had a trespasser visiting the common areas of the building regularly. In the hindsight, this person might have mental health issues: He joined conversations that were clearly not welcomed in many occasions. Since university campus was a public space and didn’t limit staff and fee-paying students, the students initially was at a lost on how to keep the trespasser out of the buildings. The students tried to alienate the trespasser but that didn’t work. At the end, a group of students called the campus police and arrested the individual. The campus police banned the trespasser from entering the campus.

  88. The OG Sleepless*

    It’s ironic that I’m reading Letter 1 a few hours after I registered for DragonCon. If you’ve never seen DragonCon’s rules of conduct, take a look. It’s long, conversational in tone, and covers everything you could think of. One of their main rules is something like “if you’re speaking with someone and they have told you no, your business with them is done.” It’s completely fine to include something like this in the rules for every gathering.

    (One of my other favorites is “No costume is no costume,” and reminds everyone that public nudity laws are alive and well in Georgia, but I digress.)

    1. Donkey Hotey*

      Given the history of Dragon Con and the removal of their broken stair, it doesn’t surprise me that they have an extensive code of conduct now

Comments are closed.