Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to me, but I
don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon today can be run
without assistance from local authorities or government. Doesn't matter
if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK, USA, or China."

True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 1/20/23 12:43, Gary McGath wrote:
> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to me, but I
> don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon today can be run
> without assistance from local authorities or government. Doesn't matter
> if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK, USA, or China."
>
> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?
>
It has been a long time since I helped with a con(and never a Worldcon)
but unless you were planing to do something offsite that needed
something like traffic being rerouted I am drawing a blank about what
kind of "assistance" you would be getting from the government. You
might need to get permits but that is more of a case of the government
agreeing not to mess things up as opposed to helping.

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:tqf0bi$27n2j$1@dont-email.me:

> On 1/20/23 12:43, Gary McGath wrote:
>> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to
>> me, but I don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon
>> today can be run without assistance from local authorities or
>> government. Doesn't matter if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK,
>> USA, or China."
>>
>> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?
>>
> It has been a long time since I helped with a con(and never a
> Worldcon) but unless you were planing to do something offsite
> that needed something like traffic being rerouted I am drawing a
> blank about what kind of "assistance" you would be getting from
> the government. You might need to get permits but that is more
> of a case of the government agreeing not to mess things up as
> opposed to helping.
>
I can't imagine there wouldn't be permits involved in any con of any
size. For something like Worldcon, you're also going to have a non-
trivial number of international visitors, which benefits from a
cooperative government. Then here's costumes, which often involve
carrying fake (we hope) weaponry, which tends to provoke overreations
from cops who don't know what's going on. And any time you have a
crowd that size, there's going to be a few who can't behave, and you
want the authorities to see you as helping them, not getting in the
way.

It's just a bad idea to try to run a public even of any size at all
without actively engaging with the local authorities beforehand.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to me, but I
>don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon today can be run
>without assistance from local authorities or government. Doesn't matter
>if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK, USA, or China."
>
>True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?

Maybe. Certainly you'll see a page in a lot of Worldcon souvenir books
with a letter from the mayor talking about how happy they are to have
Worldcon there. Local city governments have always been good resources
for folks bidding for worldcons.

Then we have New Zealand where the country's government just bent over
backwards to get Worldcon. It was amazing the amount of support that
they provided, and you could argue that because of that it was difficult
for any other bid without such support to win.

It's true that we have had a few successful bids where the local city
government seemed to go out of their way to make things difficult for
the convention and I'm not going to specifically mention a place in
Illinois.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to me,
> but I don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon today can be
> run without assistance from local authorities or government. Doesn't
> matter if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK, USA, or China."

> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?

It depends on what they mean by "today." In a socialist utopia such
as China, only a government can run a Worldcon -- or do anything else.
There's no private sphere of action. People are the property of
the state.

As for whether Worldcons in other countries get government subsidies,
I've been hoping one of the true SMOFs would answer. I've done a lot
of work for a lot of cons, but none of it financial.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 1/21/23 1:14 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to me,
>> but I don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon today can be
>> run without assistance from local authorities or government. Doesn't
>> matter if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK, USA, or China."
>
>> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?
>
> It depends on what they mean by "today." In a socialist utopia such
> as China, only a government can run a Worldcon -- or do anything else.
> There's no private sphere of action. People are the property of
> the state.

I think China is best characterized as fascist rather than
Communist-socialist, in spite of its rhetoric. The difference between
fascism and orthodox socialism is that nominal private property exists
under a fascist state, but it's placed in service to the state. Other
fascist features include the rejection of both personal and political
freedom and the unity of all of society under the ruler. China matches
every checkbox.

This allows a private sphere of sorts. The government isn't directly
running the Chengdu Worldcon. However, all the concom's choices have to
satisfy the government. That's why it has a GoH who approves of the
Uyghur camps (or at least knows he'd better say that publicly) and
another who approves of the invasion of Ukraine. It's probably the
reason for the venue change. If the concom didn't go along, its venue
could be changed to the Chinese equivalent of a Super 8 Motel.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 1/20/23 16:07, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:tqf0bi$27n2j$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 1/20/23 12:43, Gary McGath wrote:
>>> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to
>>> me, but I don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon
>>> today can be run without assistance from local authorities or
>>> government. Doesn't matter if it's in Finland, Ireland, the UK,
>>> USA, or China."
>>>
>>> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by "assistance"?
>>>
>> It has been a long time since I helped with a con(and never a
>> Worldcon) but unless you were planing to do something offsite
>> that needed something like traffic being rerouted I am drawing a
>> blank about what kind of "assistance" you would be getting from
>> the government. You might need to get permits but that is more
>> of a case of the government agreeing not to mess things up as
>> opposed to helping.
>>
> I can't imagine there wouldn't be permits involved in any con of any
> size. For something like Worldcon, you're also going to have a non-
> trivial number of international visitors, which benefits from a
> cooperative government. Then here's costumes, which often involve
> carrying fake (we hope) weaponry, which tends to provoke overreations
> from cops who don't know what's going on. And any time you have a
> crowd that size, there's going to be a few who can't behave, and you
> want the authorities to see you as helping them, not getting in the
> way.
>
> It's just a bad idea to try to run a public even of any size at all
> without actively engaging with the local authorities beforehand.
>
Yes, having someone liaison with the police is standard but not what I
would call assistance(we did have some off duty police as security at
one but I would say that was more a case of blackmail).

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> If the concom didn't go along, its venue could be changed to the
> Chinese equivalent of a Super 8 Motel.

Or to one of the labor camps. "Have you ever wished your vacation
would never end? Come to our Worldcon!"
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:tqhhpj$2o18b$1@dont-email.me:

> On 1/20/23 16:07, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:tqf0bi$27n2j$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 1/20/23 12:43, Gary McGath wrote:
>>>> Saw the following statement on Discord, which sounds wrong to
>>>> me, but I don't have the information to rebut: "no Worldcon
>>>> today can be run without assistance from local authorities or
>>>> government. Doesn't matter if it's in Finland, Ireland, the
>>>> UK, USA, or China."
>>>>
>>>> True? False? Does it depend on what they mean by
>>>> "assistance"?
>>>>
>>> It has been a long time since I helped with a con(and never a
>>> Worldcon) but unless you were planing to do something offsite
>>> that needed something like traffic being rerouted I am drawing
>>> a blank about what kind of "assistance" you would be getting
>>> from the government. You might need to get permits but that
>>> is more of a case of the government agreeing not to mess
>>> things up as opposed to helping.
>>>
>> I can't imagine there wouldn't be permits involved in any con
>> of any size. For something like Worldcon, you're also going to
>> have a non- trivial number of international visitors, which
>> benefits from a cooperative government. Then here's costumes,
>> which often involve carrying fake (we hope) weaponry, which
>> tends to provoke overreations from cops who don't know what's
>> going on. And any time you have a crowd that size, there's
>> going to be a few who can't behave, and you want the
>> authorities to see you as helping them, not getting in the way.
>>
>> It's just a bad idea to try to run a public even of any size at
>> all without actively engaging with the local authorities
>> beforehand.
>>
> Yes, having someone liaison with the police is standard but not
> what I would call assistance(we did have some off duty police as
> security at one but I would say that was more a case of
> blackmail).
>
What you call it, and what con organizers who want to stay on the
good side of the local Mayor calls it, may not bear much
resemblance to one another.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.