How does one redress wrongs to fan culture?

[neadods]

xposted to fanthropology

This last weekend has witnessed two really boneheaded maneuvers in my area of fan culture. Not just your average "I'm right/you're wrong/tastes great/less filling" drama, but a serious attempt to gain attention by spitting on the sensibilities of the greater fan culture.

Now I'm watching the two men involved try to get back in the good graces of their friends, and it's making me think about how one goes about that.

The first took place in public - at FilkOntario to be exact - and so I'm going to name names and be specific. I got a horrified email from a friend in the Boogie Knights that Tom Smith had marked the death of the Pope with a parody of "Dead Puppies." Even though my informant was a lapsed Catholic who dearly loves a good parody, she and several other members of the Knights were shocked to the core, and circumstances show they were far from alone.

Just now, Tom Smith has posted a public apology on his LJ under a cut tag. He doesn't specifically name what he did, but it sounds to me like he's referring to "Dead Pope-ies." Comments are disabled, so I don't know what reaction it is getting.

The other took place in private email, so I will not name names or go into specifics. Basically, on April 1, one person sent out a frantic mass email to his friends saying that his teenaged child had run away and they were desperate, please help. This was followed half the day later with a "ha, ha, April Fool, can't believe so many of you fell for that" message.

Quite a few people have replied to the same mass email list with their responses. None of them are along the lines of "ha, ha, fooled me." The kindest read like "how dare you cry wolf, you moron!" and the most furious were along the lines of "I had a lawyer lined up for you and was contacting my associates in law enforcement on your behalf, you asshole. Now I look like an idiot and you look like scum. Oh, and take me off your email list forever!"

The original poster has begun defending himself - don't we know he wouldn't mean to hurt us, don't we know how good his kids are and how impossible the scenario was, don't be so mad, please, I've learned my lesson, I'll go away now, let's move forward and get past this, kthnksbye.

This hasn't gone over well either. Boy, howdy, has it not. So far, the only response to this was a beautifully written essay on fan culture as a tribe and how his actions have hurt the entire tribe. One post was eloquent on how this action showed that the original poster didn't value the support system of his fannish tribe, so he shouldn't be surprised that the tribe was rejecting him. (I have asked permission to quote this without the names of those involved but not yet heard back.) ETA - I have permission to post it - it's long - and put it under a cut tag in the copy of this in Fanthropology

Fandom is a tribe. The cultures aren't exactly the same for all fandoms, we certainly have our holy wars over OTP & RPF & x/x & a variety of other acronyms, and like England, our basic Constitution is unwritten. But still, we have a discernable, distinct tribe and a sense of connection to our fellow fans through our mutual membership in the tribe.

So I'm left with the question. When one member's actions show great disrespect for the rest of the tribe, what does the tribe do? What "punishment" is correct, and how can the transgressor get back into the culture's good graces - and is that even possible?

Comments

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Hoaxes involving fake social wrongs, be it crimes or harm to children, aren't acceptable. The way those hoaxes work is by mocking people for being caring, law-abiding citizens. That's not just taking advantage of the support of the fandom tribe, that's decreasing the likelihood of an altruistic response from society in general, and there's a reason that's not acceptable - societies survive and thrive based on displays of altruism from members. He's just decreased the likelihood that those people will respond to someone who needs help in the future, which could well result in a child who needs it not getting help - certainly that one person's contacts are likely to be unavailable in future. Even beyond a fandom perspective, that's not appropriate. It's a tremendous squandering of the resources a society has on offer to keep running smoothly and protect its vulnerable members. I'd be inclined not to forgive that one, particularly not with that poor show of understanding of the problem and the desire to cover it over rather than put it right. He did real harm to the community there.

Being offensive is less damaging to the structure of the community, in and of itself. I think that one can be overcome, provided, again, there's an understanding of what the offense was and a desire to make it right. Since I don't know the filk in question, I can't say much about that, but that is one of the better apologies I've seen lately. And good on him for disabling comments and making it straight apology, not a ping-pong table for supporters and detractors.

To be honest, fandom doesn't have a lot of punishments available except for shunning and/or the loss of reputation. What does a person have to do to regain goodwill and reputation? That's the question of the ages. But I think the minimum prerequisite for forgiveness is genuine expression of regret for the transgression and the desire to earn forgiveness.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

just decreased the likelihood that those people will respond to someone who needs help in the future

Since part of his defense is "Y'all know what a moron I can be," I don't think the people involved will be less likely to respond... to anyone who isn't him.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I dunno. Being fooled about something that important leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, just like all those "I'm dying of cancer, please give what you can" emails that we know are 95% likely to be hoaxes. It lowers people's willingness to put themselves out for a good cause, because they hate being played for a fool, even if they know the source was dubious. And it also lowers their ability to respond effectively, as in the case of people who try to call in favors the time someone cries wolf. Using that as part of his defense is just trying to pass on the blame, from the person who behaved like a moron to the people who "should have known he was just a moron".

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Bonehead #2... dude. Don't know what to say. I doubt it was a question of respect-- that maneuver was just so *STUPID* that I can't say it had anything to do with insulting fandom-as-culture, and more about this man-as-moron. I'm sure he had other friends, outside of fandom, who had the same "you *dumbass*" reaction, who may have been more direct (phone, in person) in addressing how dumb he was. As such, I think that's a question for each individual to settle. Do they want to be friends with someone that stupid and inconsiderate? Who still doesn't sound like he gets where he messed up? The problem with treating this as a "tribe" problem is that this guy didn't break any of the unwritten rules of fandom; he went further, and broke all rules of good sense. I can't think of a thing he can do to reassure everyone that his terrible sense of humor won't strike again in an equally moronic way. Too, what he did wasn't specifically aimed at "fandom" elements, or "fandom" as a whole-- just aimed scatter-shot at everyone he knew. Assuming that they'd all have the same standards of conduct might be fair, but standards of punishment vary wildly.

Tom Smith, on the other hand, didn't go quite as far-- his actions were in bad bad taste, but not the kind of thing that leads to legal actions and fear for children. It was a limited venue; and he has apologized. He looks like he *does* understand why people were offended, he's taking responsibility, and he's gonna try not to be that offensive again. He's also, from what I can see, not trying to whitewash it, but just trying not to let the offense spread, by being oblique in his references. I think a genuine apology with awareness of what he did is probably enough in his case. No one outside the con would even be aware of it except by word-of-mouth. In this kind of thing, where it was a fan venue and fan reaction, "tribe" reactions are probably more appropriate than they are in mass-emailings.

My $0.05, fwiw.

[tacnukesoul.livejournal.com]

I suppose forgiveness depends on the seriousness of the offense - the filk was just stupid but it merely offended people. The other one is much worse.

I have two acquaintances on my "fecal roster" over Apr Fools LJ stunts: one claimed his new house had a structural failure and the other claimed he was just escorted from his workplace. Both have burned their bridges with me.

As to the runaway hoax - if he did it to me I'd try to get his LJ pulled and see if I could get him up on charges. This idea you can "yell fire in a crowded LJ/e-mail list" and get away with it is getting old. Heck, it started old. God/dess forbid anyone have an actual emergency on 1 Apr.

This world runs on trust relationships - anyone who flouts them is a serious threat to the community. Making an example of them is the least we should do.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I have two acquaintances on my "fecal roster" over Apr Fools LJ stunts:

I know one of the stunts you're talking about. And yeah, poor taste, although I don't think as down-to-the-bone STUPID as the call to help a missing child.

Yelling "Fire" is a really good analogy.

[jeff-morris.livejournal.com]

I can handle the first situation; given that my own sense of humor came up with an item in my own LiveJournal along with a proposed new TV series called "Survivor: Vatican" (where 24 cardinals compete in St. Peter's Basilica until one is crowned Pope), people handle stress and dramatic events in odd ways.

The second instance, however, requires rapid and repeated applications of a baseball bat to the transgressor's head to knock the stupidity out.

For the last two years, my fellow moderators and I have had an "April Fools" prank where we change the banner heading our message board to something silly. Someone complained this year that "it wasn't a very good prank", to which I replied, "There are two types of April Fools jokes: the first is obviously, blindingly silly and just there for a chuckle; the other is a deliberate attempt to mislead and can result in hurt feelings, flame wars, and the repeated application of a baseball bat to the transgressor's head to knock the stupidity out."

JSM

[neadods.livejournal.com]

with a proposed new TV series called "Survivor: Vatican"

*snerk!* Okay, that's funny. But that's also more about the culture in and out of the Vatican than it is making fun of a single death. I was pretty amused by Pontiff's Silver Hammer too... but there's a line between that and Tom Smith's song that I'm not sure I could even define. But I think it's there.

[jeff-morris.livejournal.com]

Well, the "Dead Pope-ies" is pretty much splat, there it is, in your face and out in the open. There's a much more subtle distinction in the other song.

I think it's going to be interesting watching the selection of the next Pontiff. With the advent of CNN, Faux News and the internet, it's probably going to get a more intense scrutiny than the last time. I remember when John Paul II was announced--I was working at the campus radio station and the AP teletype let off with seven dings.

And we read it, and someone said (I swear to God on this), "Oh my God, they elected a Polack."

And someone replied, "If you want to get into heaven, better make that 'Pole' from now on."

JSM

[kefiraahava.livejournal.com]

"...let's move forward and get past this, kthnksbye."

Without knowing any of the people involved in the specific incident, I can't comment except generally. But personally, that attitude always sends up warning flags for me. Every single time I've run across it in my own life, the person exhibiting it has ZERO conception of how his/her actions have hurt other people and prefers NOT to have such conception, because it's not FUN and how DARE the other people be upset, anyway, it was a JOKE, why are they so SENSITIVE...

Such people can be profoundly abusive--wittingly or unwittingly--of others' goodwill and kindness and boundaries. I'm not sure that such people *should* be allowed back into a tribe if they show no signs of realizing what they've screwed up. I say this because I've seen that in their worst manifestations they can prey on the naivete/goodwill of that tribe and do terrible damage. That's just me, of course, and mileage varies.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Such people can be profoundly abusive--wittingly or unwittingly--of others' goodwill and kindness and boundaries

Someone else - who is no longer in my personal tribe - had a habit of screwing people over by demanding 110% of their attention, then dumping them, then coming back ages later explaining "I was in a really bad place then, I'm much better now, can't you just be happy for me?" Lather, rinse, repeat until everyone washed their hands of her. Including me.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Tom Smith has always been able to get attention by being offensive, and he does push the limits. I think he's got the chops to figure out that yes, there IS a limit beyond which it's no longer funny and not do it again.

The other guy... especially with the "Oh, I didn't really do anything THAT wrong" reaction... no. Just no. He would never be welcome in my home again, if I knew him personally; if I were running a con, he'd be persona non grata, for precisely the reasons mentioned above. Ghod knows what ELSE he might pull in the name of a "joke", and if he did it at a con, it could hurt everyone there.

Which is kind of funny, since I once had my whole office going for 5 minutes on "I was at [university] for lunch and there was a bomb scare" on April 1 -- but claiming that your child has been kidnapped is several orders of magnitude beyond that. And failing to understand WHY people are so pissed is what puts him beyond the pale.