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".