Forum - View topic

The SPJA Needs to Change Its Youth Protection Policy

Unless vendors signed a contract when they booked their spaces that they agree to a background check, I don't know how AX can just spring this on them. I mean, wouldn't the contract be different than what was originally agreed upon?

ResistNormal wrote:

The people who brought guns Pokemon Championships bragged about online and where arrested n the garage before ever reaching the convention, the Security did nothing. It's great that some people feel safe but they are not, as a result of the security check points people end up in long line queues outside the secured area creating a massive pool of soft targets where if attacked the casualties would already be extremely high. The check point makes you extremely unsafe. You cannot effectively search that many people in cosplay it's pointless. If people what to feel super safe, stay home and wrap up in bubble-rap.

Just because a security method isn't perfect doesn't mean that a private event shouldn't provide any security. The cosplay just makes ir more important to check people for weapons. I heard NYCC confiscated a lot of cosplay pieces that violated its weapons policy last year, and I'm glad they did. NYCC is crowded and confusing enough without armed idiots poking you with dangerous "toys"

I honestly don't understand this "Protect the children!" security mindset that gets angrier and crazier every year. We need common sense, not bizarre "security" measures, to prevent what let's just lump together as "bad things."

You know what happened at Aki Con a couple years ago? Things like that are the reason these things are necessary.

If I'm reading this right, it only applies to anyone who's not a regular attendee?

Doesn't the background check requirement also extend to people delivering panels? I wonder if they've discussed whether these attendees would need to pay for their own background check if they do require them.

It's Insulting: Picture this, “Hi, you're one of the top manga artists in Japan, and we'd really like to have you as a guest of honor at our show, but first we need to make sure you aren't a child molester.” This is straight up offensive;

As one of the exhibitors who is being asked to spend more than 5 times the cost of our booth space on background checks alone, I'd like to ask those of you who are advocating so strongly for this policy to ask yourselves:

1) Why is this kind of background check not required of literally any other trade show you could name? I've exhibited with my previous employers at scuba industry shows, education industry shows, AARP shows... NONE of these shows require a background check. None.

2) Consider the track record of anime conventions. Fanime had an issue with people in 8 hour registration lines passing out and going to the hospital. Staff of countless cons have been accused of harassment. Fans talk on and on about boycotting or skipping shows, but it hasn't slowed growth one bit. If this issue is important - and let's be honest, it IS - there needs to be a grassroots movement to hold all conventions accountable in a reasonable way. That's not what is happening here. On that note...

3) As much as I hate to say this... have any of you considered how little impact fan opinion has on these shows? Anime Conventions have literally no incentive to repair or adjust policies because no matter what happens, people will still show up. Only ONE only major anime con in the last five years has seen a major attendance drop. However, if vendors - the people who actually pay for space at a convention and help fund the use of convention centers and hotels - have issue with a policy? That's a direct threat to an event's bottom line.

I don't say any of this to say "the vendors are right and the fans are wrong." I merely want to point out how out-of-bounds this policy is and to showcase that, no matter what you think of this policy, all anime fans owe it to themselves to better educate themselves about the events we attend.

H. Guderian wrote:

Not a fan of these checks, any way you slice it. If someone is young enough to be taken advantage of, they should have a Guardian. Shouldn't a guardian be with their charge at all times? All this extra cost and damage to a con, that actually doesn't have any teeth when it comes to protecting people.

This more than anything is why I hate this idea. Anime conventions should not be daycare for your tween children. Any parent who thinks an anime convention is a "safe space" to leave their child should be BLUNTLY disabused of that notion. I'm not saying anime conventions should not BE "safe", but they should not be viewed as a good place to leave children unsupervised.

A reasonably safe space where parents can leave their teenage kids without personal supervision and trust that there is reasonable security oversight in place. If they can't be that then this is just not a workable business model. You can't sell your convention on the basis of it being a fun, unsupervised party for teens if it isn't safe for unsupervised teens. At least not without becoming a major safety hazard.

I KNOW I am in the minority of Con Organizers on this, and at this point am PROBABLY in the minority of con MEMBERS, but call me crazy but to ME an ANIME convention is for ANIME fans to get together and celebrate their hobby. You know what it ISN'T (or SHOULDN'T be)?

"a fun, unsupervised party for teens"

EDIT: And is it just the video ad at the top right, or is there some other flash/shockwave garbage that keeps messing with my browser and really wrecking havok with trying to utilize the forums? (is there some malicious code in the site?)

In the meantime, you can contact the SPJA to let them know that, for the sake of Anime Expo, they need to repeal this policy this year, and fix it for next year.
.
.
.
Or if you are doing business with the SPJA, let your contact there know how you feel.

I'm honestly very disappointed that ANN published this article. In the past, ANN has delivered unbiased pieces (with the exception of things like reviews). However, this article clearly has a biased tilt and expects people to adopt the writer's opinion, leading to readers petitioning against this policy in favor of the writer's opinion. As a news site, this article should have been written without biased, explaining the full scope of the situation instead of simply providing the "negative outcomes".