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& #39;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& #39;s exhausting to repeat the mistakes year after year. @therisingtithes suggested in a chat it should be mandatory for this year& #39;s programming to write reports on the leadup, the event itself, & post-game analysis, to hand to the next 2 years. If it isn& #39;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& #39;s expected that they& #39;ll all participate. That& #39;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& #39;s time, creating a complementary program that enhanced the Conzealand experience. I& #39;d like to see fringe every year for time zones outside of con hours & people who can& #39;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& #39;t find a "we" that can talk about a topic maybe it isn& #39;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& #39;ve enjoyed about the worldcons I& #39;ve attended is the additions unique to the host city/country. There& #39;s a whole other discussion about the access and safety issues inherent that I& #39;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& #39;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& #39;t need to be longer, but wouldn& #39;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& #39;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& #39;t censorship to give direction, or time limits, or to make choices on what isn& #39;t appropriate. Direction also includes setting a clear vision for the event & its purpose, which is theoretically to celebrate this year& #39;s winners/finalists.

I know next year& #39;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& #39;t know how to answer them, they& #39;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& #39;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& #39;s a desire for the exciting voices of SFF present and future to be a larger part of the conversation. It& #39;s up to the con-runners to recognize that and make it more welcoming and accessible on all levels. /End

I& #39;m tagging @therisingtithes & #39;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/therising...

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

Latest Threads Unrolled: