Thread by @SarahPinsker, I just wrote a really long thread and then accidentally lost it. [...]

I just wrote a really long thread and then accidentally lost it. The gist was this: it must be incredibly demoralizing for the people who put a decade into crafting an in-person #CoNZealand experience that none of us got to have, & then see big (necessary) criticism online. But

I think it's possible to hold all of these thoughts:
-the organizers had a daunting task
-volunteers worked tirelessly to make the online experience the best it could be
-those volunteers deserve thanks and recognition
-there are systemic flaws that need to be addressed

-The panels and readings and talks and kaffeeklatsches as they existed seemed to go well, with minor hitches. The room hosts and techs did a good job prepping us and running those aspects.
-"as they existed" because again, systemic issues in programming

It's exhausting to repeat the mistakes year after year. @therisingtithes suggested in a chat it should be mandatory for this year's programming to write reports on the leadup, the event itself, & post-game analysis, to hand to the next 2 years. If it isn't a thing it should be.

-Finalist names are revealed long after programming plans are underway, but this is a known fact. Leave spots for them as if it's expected that they'll all participate. That's as simple as items labeled "Group Novella Finalist Reading" & "Fan Artist Finalists Talk Fan Art" +

-(Side note: shout out to the amazing people who put together #CoNZFringe in a week's time, creating a complementary program that enhanced the Conzealand experience. I'd like to see fringe every year for time zones outside of con hours & people who can't travel.)+

-Programming should be reviewed by multiple people, not just on axes of identity, but also areas of fandom/expertise. Ask advice & then actually incorporate it. I want a booktuber to have signed off on booktube phrasing. YA, artists, people within their own identities...

I want those things to be developed in a way that nobody is othered. If you can't find a "we" that can talk about a topic maybe it isn't a topic to include. I want participants to see programming and say "yes!" not start rolling up sleeves to fix it again. +

-that involves finding ways to include marginalized panelists who might not have the time/money/access/ability to travel. Scholarships and passes available from the beginning. Access to the info should be universal, not dependent on asking the right person.

-Part of what I've enjoyed about the worldcons I've attended is the additions unique to the host city/country. There's a whole other discussion about the access and safety issues inherent that I'm not talking about right now but

-one of the things I feel worst about with this con was the disappointment of NZ authors. The Sir Julius Vogel Awards having to fight for space. The fact most of us didn't realize we could read & vote. The paucity of panels connecting visitors to hosts.

The lack of NZ content in the Hugos. I did like the explanation of the Hugo base! That ceremony didn't need to be longer, but wouldn't it have been cool to have a brief "the SJV Awards were given earlier this week. Congrats to these winners!" instead of "I think NZ has an award"

-Guidelines for toastmasters that include pronunciation guides for all presenters and an expectation they'll put in the effort. Live mistakes are a part of live presentations, but there are ways to minimize them.+

-No content agnostic production. It isn't censorship to give direction, or time limits, or to make choices on what isn't appropriate. Direction also includes setting a clear vision for the event & its purpose, which is theoretically to celebrate this year's winners/finalists.

I know next year's con is paying attention. I hope the ones after are as well, and those interested in bidding on the future. I think there should be more questions on the bid paperwork, (some of these may be there already) including:

-what is your specific accessibility policy?
What is your harassment policy?
What is your philosophy on programming? How will you address systemic inequities?
How will you make your con accessible/affordable/safe for marginalized fans, writers, & finalists?

I want to know that these things have been thought about, and that if the con doesn't know how to answer them, they'll see that they have to find and include the people who can. The whole thing will be better for it.

I had a good time at CoNZealand, & was grateful to people pushing for change, offering spots, etc. Room host/tech volunteers did great, as did Hugo stage crew. Readings & kaffeeklatsches were great The @worldcon2021 after party was fun once we knew about it.

But post-con exhaustion always includes reflection, and again, I think it's possible to recognize the hard work done by @conzealand folks & volunteers around the world while also analyzing how to do better, and how to pass that knowledge to future cons.

We can see in the Hugo votes that there's a desire for the exciting voices of SFF present and future to be a larger part of the conversation. It's up to the con-runners to recognize that and make it more welcoming and accessible on all levels. /End

I'm tagging @therisingtithes 's great thread on here since he posted it while I was building my thread. https://twitter.com/therisingtithes/status/1289976651418177536?s=19

https://twitter.com/therisingtithes/status/1289976651418177536?s=19

Latest Threads Unrolled: