The Sasquan Worldcon Committee have decided to override their harassment committee’s initial decision to to refund Mr. Antonelli’s membership – Mr. Antonelli being the Puppy slate nominee who attempted a slow-mo SWAT of David Gerrold – and allow him to attend the convention.

In the executive committee’s statement, they say that Mr. Gerrold asked them to do this; that Mr. Gerrold believes that as a Hugo nominee – however dubious – Mr. Antonelli should be allowed to attend. As Mr. Gerrold was the target of the SWAT, I can accept that decision, if somewhat grudgingly.

But they did not mention Ms. Cuinn, who received a fleet of death and rape threats after withdrawing her acceptance of Mr. Antonelli’s story following this matter. I have expressed my displeasure, saying that they should’ve contacted her, too, and made sure she was okay with that.

They have replied, saying they did talk to her and she did agree with the reversal in this case. eta: THIS IS CONTESTED. THIS HAS BEEN REDACTED. See below. I can grudgingly accept that, as well. (Tho’ – let’s be honest here – once Mr. Gerrold gave his nod, there was no way she couldn’t go along without being socially eviscerated.)

But that they did so was not in their statement, so I had no way of knowing. I have suggested her assent in this belongs there, as well; at least one person from the committee agrees.

Given that the systematic harassment of women through rape and death threats has been such an endemic problem over the last few years, I am somewhat disappointed they didn’t realise that needed to be addressed publicly. However, the more important part is that they did contact her, and did get her signoff. I just wish they had taken a moment to say so.

eta: More and more complicated. Ms. Cuinn says she was not contacted about banning Mr. Antonelli, and did not sign off on that with the concom. She says that she was contacted about whether she wanted an investigation, but that’s different. She also says at that post (as a personal statement?) that Mr. Antonelli shouldn’t be banned because of what he threw at her – even though she does not believe his apology or that he didn’t know his crowd would go after her. But that’s not the same as signing off on the committee’s decision.

eta2: Sasquan concom member Marah Searle-Kovacevic apologises for her misstatement, and confirms Ms. Cuinn’s version. [grab]

eta3: This leaves me in a rather odd position, really. Not in any sense of “what’s being said by whom,” but in the sense of how I feel about this. I was grudgingly okay based on misinformation, and I am less so on the actual information. But how much, I do not know.

I mean, this is a high level of abuse. Even if the Slo-mo SWAT letter undoubtedly had “crackpot” written all over it, it’s still a crackpot dousing somebody in honey and whistling for bears. (The crackpot part comes in when you apparently think that bears care if you whistle.)

And then you get the hounds let loose on Ms. Cuinn. Yeah, I get it, it didn’t take place at the convention, and didn’t involve a guest. But it was direct fallout from an event that totally did, and the scooch-scooch-scooch-scooch-phew-we-can-not-care-about-this-on-a-technicality doesn’t entirely sit well with me.

No sir – I don’t like it. Not one little bit. And I don’t have a good answer beyond that.

eta4: Pretty Terrible is Pretty Clear about how she feels about it.

This part of a series of posts on the Sad/Rabid Puppy candidate slate-based capture of the Hugo Awards, and resulting fallout.