Forum - View topicNEWS: Background Checks Not Mandatory for Anime Expo, Except for Its Employees, Volunteers
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Videogamep
 Posts: 564 Location: CA |
|
||
|
This is a good sign. I hope they'll start finalizing guest contracts now that the background checks aren't an issue.
|
|||
|
|||
|
sailorsweeper
Posts: 416 |
|
||
|
I am glad that artist can just sign up and guests don't need to do background checks
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Oshawott
 Posts: 6773 |
|
||
|
I'm relieved that at least the Artist Alley members, guests, and performers are exempted from the mandatory background check. Now AX will be a bit more enjoyable...I hope.
|
|||
|
|||
|
tentensan
Posts: 102 |
|
||
|
I'm glad that they implemented this. At least this won't cost the artist that much or cause the guests at anime expo any grief.
|
|||
|
|||
Cutiebunny
 Posts: 1746 |
|
||
|
Money talks.
Sorry young'uns, but your safety isn't as important as losing out on funds from the industry. Or at least, that's what this change of policy says to me. Some of these things were already being done last year. You needed to show ID to get into the FAKKU closed area as well as Project H's Hentai Paradise rooms. I can see this hurting smaller sellers like Hen da Ne though, as their doujinshi were largely out in the open (although they card you before you browse). |
|||
|
|||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5823 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
||
The requirements they relented on were not that significant or an issue. It was the 90,000+ other reasons that they pretty much ignored. Well, they plan on increasing physical security measures, so I guess that is a bone there. The bigger conventions already have measures for adult content, so that wasn't even an issue either. |
|||
|
|||
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13552 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
||
|
Deborah Crane, who wrote the adaptation for the Harmony film that Funi licensed, was ranting this on her Facebook on Thurs:
I am guessing she means that her work got short listed for some awards or viewing thing. She said they changed their policy last year to have industry figures be chrage a nominal or moderate fee to attend. |
|||
|
|||
Akaname
 Posts: 141 Location: MA |
|
||
|
{Edit}: Your little soapboxing, and highly off topic, rant equating transgender people to pedophiles has been removed. Beyond being bigoted and ignorant it has ZERO to do with the article. I highly suggest you do not try to post that sort of garbage here again. And before you even try to pull the "you're taking away my 1st amendment rights you dictators!!" crap I suggest you read rule 1. Be civil/polite. That sort of ignorant judgmental rant is not allowed here in any flavor. ~ Psycho 101
|
|||
|
|||
|
TarsTarkas
Posts: 5823 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
||
There is only one reason you are using the "P" word, and it isn't to advance your case. Rather it is used as a threat to make other people quiet, lest you use it against them. |
|||
|
|||
|
kiminobokuwa
Posts: 547 |
|
||
No one said it was a bad thing we were just worried about how background checks on artists and guests might come off as an insult. I can't talk for everyone but I can say that background checks r important, but you don't have to associate it with how we're allowing transgender people use the bathroom they're comfortable with. That's a whole other story my friend. |
|||
|
|||
relyat08
 Posts: 4125 Location: Northern Virginia |
|
||
I think it's more a matter of how financially strenuous this would be for a lot of people involved. As well as the fact that it would have negligible positive effects for anyone in attendance. Attendants were never going to be required to get checks, just people on staff, guests, vendors, and industry people, etc. It's a good thing in the sense that now those people, many of whom are not raking in a ton of money, won't have to worry about spending hundreds or thousands of dollars getting a background check. |
|||
|
|||
Dessa
 Posts: 4438 |
|
||
1) AX has 90,000 attendees. None of the attendees were being required to have background checks. Just the ~5% of people who are working and/or making money at the event. The odds that, should something happen, it would be one of the 5% rather than the other 95% are rather slim, so it likely wouldn't have an effect. On the other hand, it protects the convention's liability only. 2) This was decided and informed to the people who it would affect 13 days after the cancellation period (for vendors, at least). Additionally, vendors and artists would have to pay for the checks themselves. That gave them 3 options: a) pay more money to get the checks done; b) perjure themselves by saying it was done when it wasn't; or c) lose out on the money they'd already paid, since they couldn't cancel. 3) In Japanese culture, it's considered incredibly rude to ask for a background check. It's seen as implying that the person has done something wrong. It could severely damage not only AX's relationship with Japanese contacts, but potentially other events as well. While the concept has merit, the way and timing that it was presented in were the biggest problem. Springing it on vendors after the cancellation period, where they were stuck either losing money or perjuring themselves. Or Japanese guests where it's culturally offensive. And, of course, the biggest factor, the fact that 95% of people won't be affected. It's worth them looking at it after the convention, to see how best to handle it, but it was far too close to the convention. |
|||
|
|||
|
AbZeroNow
Posts: 519 |
|
||
They are still requiring staff and volunteers to undergo background checks. Glad that industry folks or press have to undergo unnecessary scrunity when normal attendees who could be much more harmful would not be screened. Also, if someone is suffering from a condition that is so severe that they identify as a woman(and their brain identifies as such) despite their anatomy, I would allow them some measure of relief and let them use the restroom that they feel safe to use. |
|||
|
|||
|
samuelp
Industry Insider
Posts: 2231 Location: San Antonio, USA |
|
||
|
Good, this should allow things to proceed this year without any more flare ups about this.
The question they should be thinking about (and the more difficult question) is next year... Personally I think the liability issue should be addressed in 2 ways: Background checks subsidised by the convention for smaller vendors/artists (<5 staff, say), and for larger exhibitors/guests adding stronger clauses to their contracts indemnifying SPJA from damages from actions caused by said exhibitors/guests + a private strong recommendation that they background check their people. To me it would seem like the bigger the guest/exhibitor, the more likely those companies/agents would be to police their own staff and the more risk aware they would be themselves. This also leaves it as an "internal" decision to do background checks, so you would avoid the insult on foreign guests and their agents. As for screening the attendees, I think their current approach of making _reporting_ at the convention as easy as possible is the right approach. It is impractical to make sure there are no creeps in the 90,000 people that attend, but it's also very difficult for those creeps to do bad things without someone seeing something in such a crowd. So you just need quick and clear ways to communicate wrongdoing to security. |
|||
|
|||
ninjamitsuki
 Posts: 590 Location: Anywhere (Thanks, technology) |
|
||
|
That transphobic post was satire, right?
|
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group