# Kage (Anthrocon) handles ghosters by punishing their friends?



## DuncanFox (Jun 28, 2007)

Ok, maybe this is better suited for Rants and Raves?  I dunno.  But it's about a convention (Anthrocon) and the guy who runs it, so I'm putting it here...mods, please move it if it's more appropriate for R&R.

Anyway, Kage posted one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen to LJ the other day.  It's about people "ghosting" the convention (going there but not paying to attend, just hanging around _away from the official events_ with their friends).

He's since deleted the post, but man, he should know you can't delete anything off the Internet... (emphasis is mine)



			
				unclekage said:
			
		

> Commonly, what we will do is verify that the person we catch is indeed ghosting the convention.  At that point, we determine if the person is staying in the hotel (easier to do than you would imagine, though I'm not prepared to discuss how we do it).
> 
> If the person is staying in a hotel room, then that room, regardless of who rented it, is taken out of the Anthrocon room block.  The room charge reverts to the standard rack rate, which usually exceeds $300 per night.
> 
> *The person who rented the room is then free to speak to me when presented with the bill, so that I can inquire why a "ghost" was permitted to stay in the room.*  The few times what we have done this have resulted in the person in question buying a membership ($50 was a lot less to pay than $800 or so).  At that point we are happy to return the room to our block-rate.



Wtf?  *WTF?*  Who the hell does he think he is?  If I have people in my room who aren't going to the con, what business of Kage's is that?  And furthermore, *who is he to renegotiate my agreement with the hotel for me*?

I admit, I was gonna ghost AC.  Figured I'd tag along with a friend who already has a room, since I don't have a lot of money.  I've been to AC before, but I had my doubts about the new hotel.  I was gonna go see what it's like, and pay for a membership when I got there if it looked like a good enough time.  Otherwise I'd just hang out in people's rooms and drink 

But well, Kage, your little warning worked.  I won't even bother going.  You don't even have a _chance_ of getting my $50 now.  Apparently it doesn't matter to you.  I guess that's what happens when you get too big for your own good.  You stop caring what people think about you.  After all, you're the biggest.  What's my $50 when you're bringing in over $150,000 anyway?

I'm going to FA United.  The con and hotel both are a lot cheaper anyway (I can actually afford that one!), plus it's only about an hour away from me instead of 6.  I'm trying to convince a few friends to come with me.

_fake edit:_ While proofreading my post (I'm _obsessive_ about proofreading), I saw that Kage has actually posted an apology/retraction.  I'm sticking to my guns, though.  It's your _first_ reaction that shows what kind of person you are.  Not the retraction you post after the board of directors gets pissed at you.


----------



## uncia (Jun 28, 2007)

Good discussion over on Turbine Divinity's LJ. Depends on one's definition of "ghosting" and I'd go with their's from past experience.

_I always took ghosting to be a somewhat passive thing, showing up at the hotel for the event weekend without buying a membership, NOT trying to sneak in any events, just taking advantage of the fact that all these interesting people are in one place, and getting into room parties.
....
Once you start sneaking into events without a tag, I always felt you were no longer a ghost! You become a con crasher, or a trespasser, as it were. You're not hanging out and soaking up good vibes for free, you're actively committing acts of trespassing._

If the block deal for room rates that *Anthrocon* had negotiated with the hotel was somehow impacted by the number of people staying in a given room vs. the number of attendees at Anthrocon from that room, I could see Kage's original point. But from what I understand that's simply not the case compared with other cons (nor fur) that I've been to before where the *majority* of the action was happening in the room parties and off-site rather than at the planned events, and thus "ghosting" was a more major "concern". (A more constructive solution, of course, is to improve the scheduled events in order to hook in those "ghosts"!).

That seems to be a pretty decent, humble apology/retraction though with regards to the "narrow picture" he'd been over-focused on.

JM02c, anyhows ^^
d.


----------



## yak (Jun 28, 2007)

But the people will not be satisfied by the apology, as it usually works out.

As someone who helped run a few conventions (completely different, but conventions still) i can see how ghosting can become an irritation - but with proper schedule for people to be involved in it rarely becomes a problem.

Also, that's some nice wording of the apology by the way, i wish more people could explain themselves in a similar manner.

--

Offtopic, because this thread is not about me disagreeing with you.


			
				DuncanFox said:
			
		

> I'm sticking to my guns, though.  It's your first reaction that shows what kind of person you are.  Not the retraction you post after the board of directors gets pissed at you.


I'd have cut the guy some slack.
Running something big is a lot of stress, especially is something isn't working as planned. It isn't necessarily the nature of a person, more of a mistake. God knows i've seen people do the weirdest things under pressure that they were regretting for years.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jun 28, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> It isn't necessarily the nature of a person, more of a mistake.



I agree with you that it was a mistake for him to make that post.Â Â But it's the policy he revealed that I find disagreeable, not his post about it.Â Â The fact that he's been extorting people who pay for a hotel room and con membership, just because one of their friends didn't?Â Â F*cking nuts.

So, Kage's apology rings hollow to me.Â Â He isn't apologizing for the way he's been abusing his paying members.Â Â He's just sorry that we all found out about it.Â Â He says the policy is changing, and they won't be threatening their members with extortion anymore.Â Â But if he hadn't slipped up in the first place, they never would have made that change.Â Â And that's what I mean when I say the post revealed the true nature of the beast.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 28, 2007)

I usually register for the next AC at the current one. I guess the advantage there is that if something like that ever happened to me, I could just say, "Fine, here's the money. I'd like a refund for my next year's membership. I won't be using it." Not that I've ever had a ghost stay in my room, though.

As for how they check to see where you're staying, I'd imagine they have security cameras. (Not in the rooms, obviously, but probably in the elevators and/or hallways.)


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 29, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People make mistakes. He made one. It was pointed out to him. He acknowledged that yes it was a mistake, and apologized.

Yet he is still villified for it, held to the mistake, and no acknowledgment or credit given for retracting a bad decision he could EASILY have stubbornly stuck to had he chose to do so.

It is a frustrating trend that a person who refuses to acknowledge a mistake is treated the same way as a person who HAS acknowledged, apologized, and tried to make amends, because the guy who apologized "ONLY did it because we made him."

Lesson: Don't ever make a mistake on the internet, because all the perfect people who never ever say or do something they later regret will hold you to it forever and ever.

The guy made a really bad move. Then he did his best to undo it. What more do people want?


----------



## Pinkuh (Jun 29, 2007)

Animazement had a steller way to avoid ghosting.

Right at the beginning of the events area (And previous years hangout lobbys) they set up a group of people that checked the badges right there.

The only place you could go to without a badge was the hotel resteraunt and the registration lobby and the rooms.

Allot more people payed for badges this year.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jun 29, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Yet he is still villified for it, held to the mistake, and no acknowledgment or credit given for retracting a bad decision he could EASILY have stubbornly stuck to had he chose to do so.



I meant to say this in my last post, but apparently I took it out before submitting: This is simply the most recent of several things that have tarnished my opinion of Anthrocon over the years.Â Â The straw that broke the fox's back, as it were.Â Â Any of them individually -- including this one -- wouldn't be enough to stop me.Â Â But put 'em all together, and I've seen enough.Â Â (Note to Anthrocon staff:Â Â You guys desperately need a PR department.Â Â I can find you several people in the NJ area who are fed up with AC for similar reasons.)

I won't go into detail, because I don't want to get ridiculously off topic.Â Â But that's what it is.Â Â I'm perfectly willing to forgive, but I'd be dumber than a lab rat if I ignored a pattern.



> Lesson: Don't ever make a mistake on the internet *a reputation out of poor PR & bad service*, because all the perfect people who never ever say or do something they later regret *are paying attention* will hold you to it forever and ever *learn from the pattern*.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## nobuyuki (Jun 30, 2007)

as far as I know, FC checks badges at all con-related events, I figured AC would too?  Otherwise, there's no reason people should have to shell out 50 bucks if all they're doing is hanging out with friends at a hotel,  the entire place isn't con-reserved or whatever.  That's part of why I thought they also had the hotel and convention center seperate at AC too?  Eh, I dunno.  Never been there.

Still, holy shit, that sort of strong-arming is really nasty stuff and if I were on the board of directors I would have also had that put a stop to _immediately_.  It's borderline extortion.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 30, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> I won't go into detail, because I don't want to get ridiculously off topic.  But that's what it is.  I'm perfectly willing to forgive, but I'd be dumber than a lab rat if I ignored a pattern.



Hey! D:


----------



## DuncanFox (Jun 30, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> DuncanFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just _knew_ someone would take offense to that.


----------



## SachiCoon (Jul 1, 2007)

Eh, he apologized and took back what he said. I can see where he was coming from, even though I agree that he was wrong.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 1, 2007)

SachiCoon said:
			
		

> Eh, he apologized and took back what he said. I can see where he was coming from, even though I agree that he was wrong.


Sometimes we all have the best of intentions, but our wording and/or delivery just... doesn't come out right, or like we intended at all.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jul 1, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> I meant to say this in my last post, but apparently I took it out before submitting: This is simply the most recent of several things that have tarnished my opinion of Anthrocon over the years.  The straw that broke the fox's back, as it were.  Any of them individually -- including this one -- wouldn't be enough to stop me.  But put 'em all together, and I've seen enough.  (Note to Anthrocon staff:  You guys desperately need a PR department.  I can find you several people in the NJ area who are fed up with AC for similar reasons.)
> 
> I won't go into detail, because I don't want to get ridiculously off topic.  But that's what it is.  I'm perfectly willing to forgive, but I'd be dumber than a lab rat if I ignored a pattern.



That's an entirely different kettle o' fish then, and perfectly valid reasoning. I'm on the west coast, so don't hear much of AC except what people make a particularly big deal out of. If this sort of thing becomes a pattern, then yeah, eventually it is natural to give up expecting anything better from a person.



> > Lesson: Don't ever make a mistake on the internet *a reputation out of poor PR & bad service*, because all the perfect people who never ever say or do something they later regret *are paying attention* will hold you to it forever and ever *learn from the pattern*.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you.



Yes, actually, that works nicely.

Apologies for misreading your intent. It lacked some key points, which you provided now, to separate it from a more common and less rational way of thinking that I've been seeing a lot of recently.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jul 1, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> SachiCoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, from what I've seen, Kage is the head of something pretty huge - which says something good about his ability as leader and all that - but since this sort of PR blunder has apparently been a pattern for him, maybe it's time he acknowledged that he should try running the show from a less frontline position to avoid this sort of bad PR and customer relations. It isn't like he doesn't have a staff of people he can leave the PR to, while he still calls the shots from behind the curtain. That way, if he DOES have something to say that might not go over well, it can be filtered through people who know his good intentions, and can find a better way of presenting the idea to the public.

Good intentions SHOULD count for something, and encourage people to be a little more understanding with the inevitable PR booboo, but like Duncanfox pointed out: once it becomes an established pattern, you can't expect people to ever think you'll do any better. So at some point, you have to acknowledge a need to try a different method because the current one doesn't seem to help, good intentions or not.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jul 1, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Apologies for misreading your intent. It lacked some key points, which you provided now, to separate it from a more common and less rational way of thinking that I've been seeing a lot of recently.



No problem.  My fault for leaving out some info.  That's the problem with my habit of obsessively editing and re-editing my posts...sometimes I forget what I've edited out


----------



## Wolfblade (Jul 1, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> No problem.  My fault for leaving out some info.  That's the problem with my habit of obsessively editing and re-editing my posts...sometimes I forget what I've edited out



OMG I know. It's tough finding a balance. If you put in all the info you feel to be relevant, you get 'tl;dr' and if you try to keep it short, you invariably get someone missing your intent when they might have gotten it with a little more info left in.


----------



## Baderach (Jul 9, 2007)

So, say I was going to AC.

I'm in the hotel room, I'm paying for the room, and I have a membership to get into the con this year.

Say my mum goes with me because she happens to want to see the rest of the city--but is not interested in attending the events or anything, and stays away from the AC stuff.

Because she is taking up hotel room space in the same room I'm in, which happens to be part of the block, and is not attending events, I would be punished by them saying "either she buys a pass or your room rate goes back up"?

_What pure and utter nonsense._


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 10, 2007)

Baderach said:
			
		

> Because she is taking up hotel room space in the same room I'm in, which happens to be part of the block, and is not attending events, I would be punished by them saying "either she buys a pass or your room rate goes back up"?


In this instance, no. Because your mom is in the hotel with you, she's not sneaking into convention functions and the like. Ghosting is not so much "being there without paying" it's "being there without paying AND using the convention resources". If your mom is at the Art Show, panels and other areas, that's when they'd probably start to get angry.


----------



## Baderach (Jul 10, 2007)

Ah, I see.

Not that I have any intent to hit a con within the next year, and I definitely wouldn't be bringing any family members.  'S just the example I thought of.

Still, as long as I've got my understanding straight now.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 10, 2007)

Baderach said:
			
		

> Not that I have any intent to hit a con within the next year, and I definitely wouldn't be bringing any family members.  'S just the example I thought of.


It's a good example nonetheless.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jul 10, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> In this instance, no. Because your mom is in the hotel with you, she's not sneaking into convention functions and the like. Ghosting is not so much "being there without paying" it's "being there without paying AND using the convention resources". If your mom is at the Art Show, panels and other areas, that's when they'd probably start to get angry.



That's interesting, because the definiton of gosting that I'm used to doesn't involve sneaking into places you're not supposed to be in.*  Just hanging out with folks who are attending, in the lobby/common areas and private rooms.  I have no doubt that some of them do try and sneak into places, but that's not what I've generally understood "ghosting" to mean.

(* Attention Grammar Nazis: A preposition is a perfectly good thing to end a sentence with.)


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 11, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> That's interesting, because the definiton of gosting that I'm used to doesn't involve sneaking into places you're not supposed to be in.*Â Â Just hanging out with folks who are attending, in the lobby/common areas and private rooms.Â Â I have no doubt that some of them do try and sneak into places, but that's not what I've generally understood "ghosting" to mean.


In my opinon (and please note, this is purely opinion) staying in a hotel room priced at con rates without attending the convention can be ghosting AS you're getting a special reduced rate that's established for the con. The price rate is for attendees. The person, whether they are attending the con or not, is still using con resources (reduced rate hotel room), so the answer is undoubtedly a yes.

However, I think special exclusions could be made for chaperones in this regard.

There are many ways to look at it. You can have a "con ghost" and a "room ghost" in that respect.


----------



## Baderach (Jul 11, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> However, I think special exclusions could be made for chaperones in this regard.



I should note that being quite well over 18, my bringing a parent would not be them as a chaperone.

If that changes the situation yet again, then I change my mind yet again.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jul 11, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> In my opinon (and please note, this is purely opinion) staying in a hotel room priced at con rates without attending the convention can be ghosting AS you're getting a special reduced rate that's established for the con. The price rate is for attendees. The person, whether they are attending the con or not, is still using con resources (reduced rate hotel room), so the answer is undoubtedly a yes.



But doesn't the con pay less money to the hotel as more rooms are booked?  Though I can see it as "taking up con resources" in that it could be denying someone else a room, so the convention itself benefits from the lower rate but might lose out on a membership.

But at least in my personal case, I was just gonna share a room at AC with someone who was already paying to attend.  And it seems that's precisely the case that Kage was going after, saying (to paraphrase) if he caught me ghosting, he'd find out what room I was in, and extort/bully my friend into getting me registered.

You gotta admit that's lame.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 11, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> But doesn't the con pay less money to the hotel as more rooms are booked?Â Â Though I can see it as "taking up con resources" in that it could be denying someone else a room, so the convention itself benefits from the lower rate but might lose out on a membership.


Yes, the more room blocks you can fill the cheaper it is. But when a convention can fill an entire hotel, it becomes more pertinent to keep con-attending guests in the rooms as much as possible.


----------



## Oni (Jul 11, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I am wondering about is:
How does AC staff aquire your personal details without asking you for identification? A person can simply deny showing someone their identification, which could prevent someone from being caught ghosting, and from there assumptions can be made about how personal information is aquired by AC staff.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 11, 2007)

They can just check your badge against their database. (You need a billing address and an ID Card to get a badge.) If you're not displaying your badge in a "attendees only" area, they can (but probably won't) ask you to show it to them. It you can't produce one, they can certainly track you to where you are staying and, if it's within the con's room block, find out who's renting that room.


----------



## Oni (Jul 11, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> They can just check your badge against their database. (You need a billing address and an ID Card to get a badge.) If you're not displaying your badge in a "attendees only" area, they can (but probably won't) ask you to show it to them. It you can't produce one, they can certainly track you to where you are staying and, if it's within the con's room block, find out who's renting that room.


People who ghost do not have con badges though... so in order to aquire your personal information after refusing to show identification, AC staff would have to.. ?


----------



## net-cat (Jul 11, 2007)

Well, they can't. That's why they go after the people who's room you're staying in.


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2007)

and AC staff would know who's room you are staying in, how? ;d

Unless they have hidden video cameras I do not understand how they can be successful ghostbusting lol. ;d


----------



## net-cat (Jul 12, 2007)

It wouldn't surprise me if there were video cameras in the hallways. Even if there aren't, it's surprisingly easy to follow someone without them noticing.


----------



## Oni (Jul 13, 2007)

Either way, whoever was caught ghostsing, ouch. 
*makes fun of their intelligence level. ;d*


----------



## raydobbs (Aug 9, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> net-cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hotels provide a 'master list' of people occupying a convention room block, so that you can compare your registration list to the master list.  This is useful to make sure that the event will meet attendance requirements in order to fulfill their contract - and avoid attritution (applicable in cases where the convention promises the hotel to fill X number of rooms, but in reality only fills <X number of rooms.  Think damages for lost profits)

The answer is aggressive marketing to those who are occupying your room block to get them to pay for membership, not punishing those who are members who happen to know those who aren't.

The property is still owned by the hotel management, and they will -not- kick out a paying guest (except if they break laws, become a nuisance, etc) just because they don't attend your event.  However, it may be possible to set up with the hotel that only registered members of your event can get the convention room rate - but that will cause big problems for those who usually register at the door.


----------



## Kobaruto (Aug 16, 2007)

I believe he was justified. Ghosts steal from the con, why not steal back from them?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 16, 2007)

Kobaruto said:
			
		

> I believe he was justified. Ghosts steal from the con, why not steal back from them?


Because the people who own the room may not be the ghosts, nor even know their roommates are ghosting -- plus, if everybody is pitching it, it may burn legitimate roommates. While everybody should ensure their roommates are regged, I dunno... it just seems as if it would put good people into bad situations. 

I also don't feel it's right to sink to the ghosts' levels. If they steal from me it doesn't give me full right to steal from them. Conventions should not be an "eye for an eye".


----------

